Skip to main content

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

See other formats













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

^ '^ ^ 

ca < U 

LU O^ r> 












The right of Travslation is reserved. 


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


AM> f'MAmNo cmoss. 


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

Dean of Canterbury. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Norrisian Professor of Divinity, Cambridge ; Canon of Exeter. 

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

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

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

Vicar of Bredwardine with Brobury, Herefordshire. 

F. C. C. Eev. F. C. Cook, M.A., 

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

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

Lord Bishop of Calcutta and Metropolitan of India. 

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

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



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

BritiKh ]Mxiseum. 

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

Lano Seminary, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fellow of the Eoyal Institute of British Architects. 

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

late Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford 

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

Lord Bishop of Killaloe. 

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

Subdean of Her Majesty's Chapels EoyaL 

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

late Hebrew Examiner in the University of London. 

G. George Grove, 

Crystal Palace, Sydenham. 

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

Professor of Biblical Literature, Newton, Massachusetts. 

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

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

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

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

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

Archdeacon of Sudbury, and Eector of Ickworth. 

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tutor of University College, Oxford ; Examining 

Chaplain to the Archbishop of York. 

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

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

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

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

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

Professor of Hebrew in University College, London. 

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

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

Oppert. Professor Oppert, of Paris. 

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

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

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

Archdeacon of Suffolk ; late Fellow of Brasenose College, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rural Dean, and Rector of Houghton Conquest, Bedfordsbire. 

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

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

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

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

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

Professor of Sacred Literature, Andover, Massachusetts. 

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

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

S. P. Tregelles, LL.D., 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rev. Christopher Wordsworth, D.D., 

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

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


















. .\ 

. W 





RED SEA. The sea known, to us as the Red 
Sea was by the Israelites called " the sea" (D*n. 
Ex. xiv. 2, 9, 16, 21, 28; xv. 1. 4, 8, 10, 19; 
Josh. xxiv. 6, 7 ; and many other passages) ; and 
specially "the sea of siiph" (fl-1D"DV Ex. x. 19 ; 
xiii. 18; xv. 4, 22; xxiii. 31 ; Num. xiv. 25;- xxi. 
4 ; xxxiii. 10, 11 ; Deut. i. 40 ; xi. 4; Josh. ii. 10 ; 
iv. 23 ; xxiv. 6 ; Judg. xi. 16; 1 K. ix. 26; Neh. 
ix. 9 ; Ps. cvi. 7, 9, 22 ; cxxxvi. 13, 15 ; Jer. xlix. 
21 ). It is also perhaps written HQ-ID (Zw(i;3, LXX.) 
in Num. xxi. 14, rendered " Red Sea " in A. V. ; 
and in like manner, in Deut. i. 1, f]-1D, without 
D''. The LXX. always render it tj epvdpa BaKaffffa 
(except in Judg. xi. 16, where P^-ID, Si*/), is pre- 
served). So too in N. T. (Acts vii. 36 ; Heb. xi. 29) ; 
and this name is found in 1 Mace. iv. 9. By the 
classical geographers this appellation, like its Latin 
equivalent Mare Rubrum or Jf. Erythraeum, was 
extended to all the seas washing the shores of tlie 
Arabian peninsula, and even the Indian Ocean : the 
Red Sea itself, or Arabian Gulf, was 6 'ApaBios 
kSXttos, or 'ApafiiKhs k., or Sinus Arabicus, and 
its eastein branch, or the Gulf of the 'Akabeh, 
AlXavlrris, 'EA.oj'i'ttjs, 'EXavLTiKhs, KoKiros, Sinus 
Aelanites, or -S'. Aelaniticus. The Gulf of Suez 
was specially the Heroopolite Gulf, 'HpwoTroAiTrjs 
k6\ttos. Sinus Heroopolites, or S. HeroopoUticus. 
Among the peoples of the East, the Red Sea has for 
many centuries lost its old names : it is now called 
generally by the Arabs, as it was in mediaeval times, 
Bahr El-Kulzum, " the seaof El-Kulzum," after the 
ancient Clysma, " the sea-beach," the site of which 
is near, or at, the modern Suez.* In the Kur-an, 
part of its old name is preserved, the rare Arabic 
word yamin being used in the account of the passage 

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

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

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

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


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

? y 

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

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

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

(2.) Pj-ID'O'' ; in the Coptic version, cblOJUL 
nCtlA.pi. The meaning oi suph, and the reason 
of its being applied to this sea, have given rise to 
much learned controversy. Gesenius renders it i-ush, 
reed, sea-u-eed. It is mentioned in the 0. T. almost 
always in connexion with the sea of the Exodus. 
It also occurs in the narrative of the exposure of 
Moses in the 1K\ (jjcor') ; for he was laid in suph, 
on the brink of the yeor (Ex. ii. 3), where (in the 
supJi) he was found by Pharaoh's daughter (5) ; and 
in tire " burden of Egypt " (Is. xix.), with the dry- 
ing up of the watei's of Egypt • " And the waters 
shall fail from the sea (ydiii), and the river {ndhdr) 
shall be wasted and dried up. And they shall turn 
the rivers {ndhdr, constr. pi.) far away ; [and] the 
brooks {yeor) of defence (or of Egypt ?) shall be 
emptied and dried up : the i-eeds and flags {siiph) 
shall wither. The paper reeds '^ by the brooks (yeor), 
by the mouth of the brooks {yeor), and everything 

d Gesenius adds Is. xix. 5, quoted below ; but it is not 
easy to see why this should be the Nile (except from pre- 
conceived notions), instead of the ancient extension of the 
Red Sea. He allows the " tongue of the Egyptian sea 
(yam)" in Is. xi. 15, where the river [Nile] is nahar. 

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

3 T 




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

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

The signification of t|-1D, suph, must be gathered 
from the foregoing passages. In Arabic, the word, 
with this signification (which commonly is " wool "), 
is found only in one passage iu a rare lexicon (the 
Mohkam 5IS.). The author says, " Soof-el-bahr 
(the soof of the sea) is like the wool of sheep. 
And the Arabs have a proverb: ' I will come to thee 
when the sea ceases to wet the soof' " i. e. never. 
The C]-1D of the D*, it seems quite certain, is a sea- 
weed reseiiMing wool. Such sea-weed is thrown up 
abundantly on the shores of the lied Sea. Fiirst 
s;i_vs, s. r. S]-1D, " Ab Aethiopibus herba quaedam 
snpho appellabatur, quae in profando maris rubri 
crescit, quae rubra est, rubrumque colorem continet, 
pannis tinjcendis )n.=eiTipntem, teste Hieronymo de 
qualitate mans rubri" (p. 47, &c.). Diodaius (iii. 
c. 19), Artemidorus (ap. Strabo, p. 770), and Aga- 
tharchides (ed. Miiller, p. 136-7), speak of the weed 
of the Arabian Gulf. Ehrenbeig (in Winer) enu- 
meiates Fncus latifolius on the shores of this sea, 
and at Suez Fuais crispus, F. trinodis, F. turhinatus, 
F. papillosHS, F. diaphanus, &c., and the specially 
red weed Trichodesmimn erythraeum. The Coptic 
version renders suph by shari (see above), supposed 
to be the hieroglyphic " SHER " (sea ?). If this be 
the same as the sari of Pliny (see next paragraph), 
we must conclude that shari, like suph, was both 
marine and fluvial. The passage in Jonah proves it 
to Ije a marine product; and that it was found in the 
lied Sea, the numerous passages in which that sea 
is called the sea of suph leave no doubt. 

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

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

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

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

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

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


(Wilkinson's Ancinit Egyptians, iii. 61, 149, citing 
Pliny, xiii. 11, Strab. xvii. 550); and that this is 
agreeable to the position of the ancient head of the 
gulf, with its canals and channels for irrigation 
(yeoriin?), connecting it with the Nile and with 
Lake Mareotis ; and we may suppose that in this 
and other similar districts, the papyrus was culti 
vated iu the yeorim: the marshes of Egypt aje 
now in the north of the Delta and are salt lands. — 
As a fluvial rush, suph would be found in marsli- 
huids as well as streams, aud in brackish water as 
well as in sweet. It is worthy of note that a low 
mai-shy place near the ancient head of the gulf is to 
this day called Ghuweyhet el-Boos, "the bed of 
reeds," and another place near Suez has the same 
name ; traces perhaps of the gieat fields of reeds^ 
iTishes, and papyrus, which flourished here of old. 
See also Pi-hahiroth, " the place wheie sedge 
gi'ows" (?). Fresnel {Dissertation sur le schari 
des E'gyptiens et le souf des Hehreux, Joum. 
Asiat. 4* serie, si. pp. 274, •&c.) enumerates some 
of the reeds found in Egypt. There is no sound 
reason for identifying any one of these with siiph. 
Fresnel, in this curious paper, endeavours to prove 
that the Coptic " shari " (in the yam shari) was the 
Arundo Aeyyptiaca of Desfontaines (in modern 
Arabic hoos Fdrisee, or Persian cane) : but there 
appear to be no special grounds for selecting this 
variety for identification with the fluvial shari ; 
and we must entirely dissent from his suggestion 
that the shari of the Red Sea was the same, and 
not sea-weed : apart from the evidence v.'hich con- 
troverts his arguments, they ai:e in themselves quite 
inconclusive. Sir Gardner Wilkinson's catalogue ot 
reeds, &c., is fuller than Fresnel's, and he suggests 
the CypeiTis Dives or tlistigiatus (Arabic, Dees) to 
be the sari of Pliny. The latter says, " Fructicosi 
est genus sari, circa Xilum nascens, duorum fere 
cubitomm altitudine, pollicari crassitudiue, coma 
papyri, simileque manditur modo" {N. If. xiii. 23; 
see also Theophr. iv. 9). 

The occurrence of siiph in the 7je6r (Ex. ii., Isa. 
xix.) in the land of Goshen (Ex. ii.), brings us to a 
consideration of the meaning of the latter, which in 
other respects is closely connected with the subject 
of this article. 

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

est nomen appellativum olerum et herbanim virentiiun.' 
Hence we may render, ' The uiarchy [sic) medows [stcl at 


Egypt, wliere Pharaoh is " the great dragon that 
lieth in the midst of his rivers (VIS?), which hath 
said, My river Cl'X*) is mine own, and I have made 

[it] for myself" (xxix. 3), uses the pi. throughout, 
with the above exception and verse 9, " because he 
hath said, The river ("IX'') [is] mine, and I have 
made it ;" it cannot be supposed that Pharaoh would 
have said of the Nile that he had made it, and the 
passage seems to refer to a great canal. As Ezekiel 
was contemporary with Pharaoh Necho, may he 
not here have referred to the re-excavation of the 
ciinal of the Red Sea by that Pharaoli ? That canal 
may have at least received the name of the canal of 
Pharaoh, just as the same canal when re-excavated 
for the last time was " the canal of the Prince 
of the Faithful," and continued to be so called. — 
Yeor occurs elsewhere only in Jer. xlvi. 7, 8, 
in the prophecy against Necho ; in Isa. xxiii. 1.0, 
where its application is doubtful; and in Dan. xii. 
5, 6, whei-e it is held to be the Euphrates, but may 
be the great canal of Babylon. The pi. yeonin, 
seems to be often used interchangeably with yeor 
(as in Ez. xxix., and Nah. iii. 8) ; it is used for 
" rivers," or " channels of water ;" and, while it is 
not restricted to Egypt, especially of those of the 

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



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

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

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

(4.) f] ipvdpa OdXaaaa. The origin of this ap- 
pellation has been the soui'ce of moi'e speculation 
even than the obscure supk ; for it lies more within 
the range of genei'al scholarship. The theories ad- 
vanced to account for it have been otten puerile, and 
generally unworthy of acceptance. Their authors 
may be divided into two schools. The first have 
a.scribed it to some natural phenomenon ; such as 
the singularly red appearance of the mountains of 
the western coast, looking as if they were sprinkled 
with Havannah or Brazil snuff', or brick-dust (Bruce), 
or of which the redness was reflecteil in the waters 
of the sea (Gosselin, ii. 78-84) ; the red colour of the 
water sometimes caused by the presence of zoophytes 
(Salt; Ehrenberg) ; the red coral of the sea ; the red 
sea-weed ; and the red storks that have been seen 
in great numbers, &c. Reland {De Mare Rubra, 
Diss. Miscell. i. pp. 59-117) argues that the epithet 
red was applied to this and the neighlioiu'ing seas on 
account of their tropical heat ; as indeed was said 
by Artemidorus {ap. Strabo, xvi. 4, 20), that the 
sea was called led because of the letlexion of the sun. 
The second have endeavoured to find an etymological 
derivation. Of these the earliest (European) writers 
proposed a derivation from Edom, " red," by the 
Greeks translated literally. Among them were N. 
Fuller (Aliscell. Sacr. iv. c. 20) ; before him, Sca- 
liger, in his notes to Festus ; voce Aegyptinos, ed. 
1574; and still eai'Iier Genebrard, Comment, ad Ps. 
106 ; Bochart (P/jflfe^, iv. c. 34) adopted this theoiy 
(see Reland, Diss. Miscell. i. 85, ed. 1706). The 
Greeks and Romans tell us that the sea received its 
name from a great king, Erythras, who reigned in 
the adjacent country (Strab. xvi. p. 4, §20 ; Pliny, 
N. H. vi. cap. 23, §28 ; Agatharch. i. §5 ; Philostr. 
iii. 15, and others):'' the stories that have come 
down to us appear to be distortions of the ti-adition 
that Himyer was the name of apparently the chief 
family of Arabia Felix, the great South-Arabian 
kingdom, whence the Himyerites, and Homeritae. 
Himyer appears to be derived from the Arabic 
" ahmar," red (Himyer was so called because of the 
red colour of his clothing, En-Nuweyree in Caussin, 
i. 54) : " aafar " also signifies " red," and is the 
root of the names of several places in the penin- 
sula so called on account of their redness (see 
Mardsid, p. 263, &c.) ; this may pomt to Ophir: 
(pOLVi^ is red, and the Phoenicians came from the 
Erythraean Sea (Herod, vii. 89). We can scarcely 
doubt, on these etymological grounds,' the con- 

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

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

3T 2 



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

Ancient Limits. — The most impoi-tant change in 
the Red Sea has been the drying up of its northern 
extremity, " the tongue of the Egyptian Sea." 
The land about the head of the gulf has risen, and 
that near the Mediterranean become depressed. 
The head of the gulf has consequently retired 
gradually since the Christian era. Thus the pro- 
phecy of Isaiah has been fulfilled : " And the 
Lord shall utterly destroy the tongue of the 
Egyptian sea" (xi. 15); "the waters shall fail 
from the sea " (xix. 5j : the tongue of the Ked 
Sea has diied up for a distance of at least 50 miles 
from its ancient head, and a cultivated and well- 
{)eopled province has been changed into a desolate 
wildeniess. An ancient canal conveyed the waters 
of the Nile to the lied Sea flowing through the 
Wadi-t-Timipylat, and inigating with its system of 
Water-channels a large extent of country ; it also 
provided a means for conveying all the commerce 
of the Red Sea, once so imporLint, by water to the 
Nile, avoiding the risks of the desert-journey, and 
securing water-c-iniage from the Ked Sea to the 
Meilitcnjuiean. The drying up of the head of the 
gulf apjK'.irs to have been one of the chief causes of 
the neglect and ruin of this canal. 

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

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


Timsah, " the lake of the Crocodile," and is sup- 
posed to mark the ancient head of the gulf. The 
ciinal that connected this with the Nile was of 
Pharaonic origin.'' It was anciently known as the 
" Fossa liegum," and the " canal of Hero." Pliny, 
Diodorus, and Strabo, state that (up to their time) 
it reached only to the bitter springs (which appear 
to be not the present bitter lakes, but lakes west 
of Heroojiolis), the extension being abandoned on 
account of the supposed greater height of the waters 
of the Ked Sea. According to Herod, (ii. cap. 158) 
it left the Nile (the Tanitic branch, now the canal 
of El-Jlo'izz) at Bubastis (Pi-beseth), and a canal 
exists at this day in this neighbourhood, which 
ap[iears to be the ancient channel. The canal was 
four days' voyage in length, and sufficiently broad 
tor two triremes to row abreast (Herod, ii. 158 ; 
or 100 cubits, Strab. xvii. 1, §26; and 100 feet, 
Pliny, vi. cap. 29, §33). The time at which the 
canal was extended, after the drying up of the 
head of the gulf, to the present head is uncertain, 
but it must have been late, and probably since the 
ilohammadan conquest. Traces of the ancient 
channel throughout its entire length to the vicinity 
of Bubastis. exist at intervals in the present day 
(Descr. do l'^<iypte, E. M. xi. 37-381, and v. 135- 
158, 8vo. ed.). — The Amnis Trajmms (Tpa'iavhs 
iroT. jit. iv. 5, §54), now the canal of Cairo, was 
probably of Pharaonic origin ; it was at any rate re- 
paired by the emperor Adrian ; and it joined the 
ancient canal of the Pled Sea between Bubastis and 
Heroopolis. At the Arab conquest of Egypt, this 
was found to be closed, and was reopened by 'Amr 
by command of 'Omar, after whom it was called 
the " canal of the Prince of the Faithful." Country- 
boats sailed down it (and passed into the Red Sea to 
Yembo' — see Shems-ed Deen in De'scr. de VE'gypte, 
8vo. ed., xi. 359), and the water of the Nile ran 
into the sea at El-Kulzura ; but the fomier com- 
merce of Egypt was not in any degree restored ; 
the canid was opened with the intention of securing 
supplies of grain from Egypt in case of famine 
in Arabia ; a feeble intercourse with the newly- 
important holy cities of Arabia, to provide for the 
wants of the pilgrims, was its principal use. In 
A.H. 105, El-Mansoor ordered it to be filled up (the 
Khitat, Descr. of the Canals), in order to cut off 
supplies to the Shiya'ee heretics in El-Medeeneh. 
Now it does not flow many miles beyond Cairo, 
but its channel is easily traceable. 

The land north of the ancient head of the gulf is 
a plain of heavy sand, merging into marsh-land 
near the Jlediterranean coast, and extending to Pa- 
lestine. We learn from El-JIakreezee that a tradi- 
tion existed of this plain having been formerly well 
cultivated with saffron, safflower, and sugar-cane, 
and peopled throughout, from the frontier-town of 
El-'Areesh to El-'Abb;Tseh in Wadi-t-Tumeylat 
(see Exodus, the, Map; The Khitat, s. v. Jifdr; 
comp. Mardsid, ib.). Doubtless the drying up of 
the gulf with its canal in the south, and the de- 
pression of the land in the north, have converted 
this once (if we may believe the tradition, though 
wo cannot extend this fertility as far as El-'Areesh) 
notoriously-fertile tract into a proverbially sandy 
and parched desert. This region, including Wadi-t- 
Tumeylat, was piobably the frontier land occupied 
in part by the Israelites, and open to the incursions 

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




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

yeor, as we have given good reason for believing, in 
this application, was apparently the ancient head of 
the gulf or the canal of the Ked Sea, with its yeorim 
or water-channels, on which Goshen and much of 
the plain north of it depended for their fertility. 

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

and micaceous, talcose, and other schists " {id. 382). 
Gebel-ez-Zeyt, "the mountain of oil," close to the 
sea, abounds in jietroleum {id. 385). This coast 
is especially interesting in a Biblical point of view, 
for here were some of the earliest monasteries of 
the Eastern Church, and in those secluded and 
barren mountains lived very early Christian hermits. 
The convent of St. Anthony (of the Thebais), 
" Deyr Mar Antooniyoos," and that of St. Paul, 
" Deyr Mar Bolus," are of great renown, and were 
once important. They are now, like all Eastein 
monasteries, decayed ; but that of St. Anthony 
gives, fiom its monks, the Patriarch of the Coptic 
church, i'ovmerly chosen from the Nitrian monas- 
teries {id. 381). — South of the "Elba" chain, the 
country gradually sinks to a plain, imtil it rises to 
the highland of Geedan, lat. 15^, and thence to 
the straits extends a chain of low mountains. The 
greater part of the African coast of the Red Sea is 
sterile, sandy, and thinly peopled ; first beyond 
Suez by Bedawees chiefly of the Ma'azee tribe. 
South of the Kuseyr road, are the 'Abab'deh ; and 
beyond, the Bisharees, the southern branch of 
which are called by Arab writers Beja, whose cus- 
toms, language, and ethnology, demand a careful 
investigation, which would undoubtedly be repaid 
by curious results (see El-Makreezee'sA7iite^, Z)escr. 
of the Beja, and Descr. of the Pesert of Eydhdh ; 

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

granitic peninsula of Sinai into two gulfs: the 
westernmost, or Gulf of Suez, is now about 130 
geographical miles in length, with an average width 
of about 18, though it contracts to less than 10 
miles: the easternmost, or Gulf of El-'Akabeh, is 
only aboTit 90 miles long, from the Straits of 
Tiran, to the 'Akabeh [Ei.ATh], and of propor- 
tionate narrowness. The navigation of the Red 
Sea and Gulf of Suez, near the shores, is very 
difficult from the abundance of shoals, coral-reefs, 
I'ocks, and small islands, which render the channel 
intricate, and cause strong currents often of un- 
known force and direction ; but in mid-channel. 

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

The Gulf of El-'Akabeh (i. e. " of the Mountain- 
road ") is the termination of the long valley of the 
Ghor or 'Arabah that runs northwards to the Dead 
Sea. It is itself a narrow valley ; the sides are lofty 
and precipitous mountains, of entiie barrenness ; the 
bottom is a river-like sea, running nearly straight for 
its whole length of about 90 miles. The northerly 
winds rush down this goi-ge with uncommon fury, 
and render its navigation extremely perilous, causing 
at the same time strong counter currents ; while 

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

(Wellsted, ii. 300). — The bottom in deep sound- 
ings is in most places sand and stones, from Suez as 
far as Juddah ; and thence to the straits it is com- 
monly mud. The deepest sounding in the excellent 
Admiralty chart is 1054 fathoms, 'in lat. 22° 30'. 
.lourneying southwards from Suez, on our left is 

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

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

the greater part of the Nile valley in Egypt, the 
clifis on the sea-margin stretching landwards in a 
gi'eat .rocky plateau, while more inland a chain of 
volcanic mountains (beginning about lat. 28° 4' 
and running south) rear their lofty peaks at in- 
tervals above the limestone, generally about 15 

Straits is 6000 ft. There is no pasturage, and little 
fertility, except near the 'Akabeh, where are date- 
groves and other plantations, &c. In earlier days, 
this last-named place was (it is said) famous for its 
fertility. The Island of Graia, Jezeeret Fara'oon, 
once fortified and held by the Crusaders, is near its 

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

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

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

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

1014 RED SEA 

thev recede CWellsted, ii. 242). Buvckhavdt remarks 
that tlie descent on the eastern side of these moun- 
toins, like the Lebanon and the whole Syrian range 
east of the Dead Sea, is much less than that on the 
western ; and tliat the jieaks seen from the east, or 
land side, appear mere hills {Anxhia, ;;21 seq.). In 
clear weather thev aie visible at a distance of 40 to 
70 miles ^WcUst'ed, ii. 242), the distant ranges 
have a niwetl jxiinted outline, and are granitic ; at 
Wejh, witli horizontal veins of quartz ; nearer the 
sea many of the hills are fossiliforous limestone, 
while the beach hills •' consist of liglit-coloured 
sandstone, fronted by and containing large quan- 
tities of shells .and masses of coral" (Wellsted, ii. 
243). Coi-al also " entei-s largely into the compo- 
sition of some of the most elevated hills." The 
more remarkable mountains are Jcbel 'Eyn-Unmi (or 
'Evnuwunnii, Mardsid, s. v. 'V^\-\\, "Ovvi] of Ptol.), 
6000 11. high near the Straits ; a little further south, 
and close to Mo'eyleh, are mountains rising from 
6330 to 7700 ft., of which Wellsted says, " The 
coast ... is low, gi-adually ascending with a mode- 
rate elevation to the distmcc of six or seven miles, 
when it rises abruptly to hills of great height, those 
near Mowllahh temiinating in sharp and singularly- 
shaped peaks . . . Mr. Irwin [1777] . . . has styled 
them Bullock's Horns. To me the whole group 
seemed to bear a great resemblance to representations 
which 1 have seen of enormous icebergs" (ii. 176; 
see also the Admiralty Chart, and Wiiller's Geogr. 
Min.). A little north of Yembo' is a remarkable 
group, the pvramidal mountains of Agatharchides ; 
and beyond, about 25 miles distant rises J. Radwa. 
Further south, J. Subh is remarkable for its 
magnitude and elevation, which is greater than 
any other between Yembo' and Jiddah ; and still 
further, but about 80 miles distant from the coast, 
.1. Riis el-Kuril rises behind the Holy city, Mekkeh. 
it is of this mountain that Burckhardt writes so 
enthusiastically— how rarely is he enthusiastic — 
contrasting its verdure and cool breezes with the 
sandy waste of Tihiimeh {Arabia, 0.5 seqq.). The 
chain continuc-s the whole length of the sea, termi- 
nating in the highlands of the Yemen. The Arabian 
mountains are generally fertile, agreeably ditt'erent 
from the fvarched jilains below, and their own bare 
granite ])eaks above. The higlilands ami mountain 
summits of the Yemen, " Arabia the Happy," the 
Jebel a-s distinguished from the plain, are preci- 
pitous, lofty, and fertile (Niebuhr, Dcscr. 161) ; 
with many towns and villages in their valleys and 
on their sides. — The coast-line itself, or Tihameh, 
" north of Yembo', is of moderate elevation, varying 
from 50 to 100 feet, with no beach. To the 
southward [to .luddah] it is more sandy and less 
elevateil: (he inlets and harboui's of the former 
tract may be styled coves ; in the- latter they are 
lagoons" (Wellsted, ii. 244). — The coral of the Red 
.Sea is reniaikably abundant, and beautifully co- 
loui'cil and variegated. It is often red, but the more 
lommon kind is white; and of hewn blocks of this, 
m.iny of the Arabian towns are built. 

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


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

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





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

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

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

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

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


they, Zur Erdkunde d. Alt. Aegyptens, map vi.), 
and the cliief modern route from Cairo to Sp-ia 
piisses aloncj the Wadi-t^Tumeylat and leads to 
Gaza (Wilkhison, Handbook, new ed. p. 209). 

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

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

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

iok; ked sea, passage of 

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

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

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

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


which rises on the north and shuts off all escape in 
that direction, excepting by a naiTow way along 
the sea-shore, which Pharaoh might have occupied. 
The sea here is broad and deep, as the narrative 
is generally held to imply. All the local features 
seem suited for a great event ; but it may well 
be asked whether there is any reason to expect 
that suitableness that human nature seeks for and 
modern imagination takes for granted, since it 
would have been useless for the objects for which 
the miracle appears to have been intended. The 
deseit-way from Memphis is equally poetical, but 
how is it possible to recognise in it a route which 
seems to have had two da3-s' journey of cultivation, 
the wilderness being reached only at the end of the 
second day's march ? The supposition that the Israel- 
ites took an upper route, now that of the Mekkeh 
caravan, along the desert to the north of the ele- 
vated tract between Cairo and Suez, must be men- 
tioned, although it is less probable than that just 
noticed, and offers the same difficulties. It is, how- 
ever, possible to suppose that the Israelites crossed 
the sea near Suez without holding to the traditional 
idea that they attained it by the Wadi-t-Teeh. If 
they went through the Wadi-t-Tumeylat they might 
have turned southward from its eastern end, and so 
re;iched the neighbourhood of Suez ; but this would 
make the third day's journey more than thirty miles 
at the least, which, if we bear in mind the com- 
position of the Israelite caravan, seems quite iu- 
ci-edible. We therefore think that the only opinion 
warranted by the naiTative is that already stated, 
which supposes the passage of the sea to have taken 
place near the northernmost part of its ancient ex- 
tension. The conjecture that the Israelites advanced 
to the north, then crossed a shallow part of the Me- 
diterranean, where Pharaoh and his army were lost 
■ in the quicksands, and afterwards turned south- 
wards towards Sinai, is so repugnant to the Scripture 
naiTative as to amount to a denial of the occurrence 
of the event, and indeed is scarcely worth men- 

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

c It has been calculated, that if Napoleon I. had ad- 
vanced by one road into Belgium, in the AV'aterloo cam- 
paign, his column would have been sixty miles in lengtn. 


valley of Uppr Kgyp* ^'^'^ abundant sepulchral 
p-ottoes, (if which the entrances are conspicuously 
seen from the liver and the fields it watei-s : in the 
sandy slopes at the loot of tlie mountains are pits 
without number and many built tombs, all of 
ancient times. No doubt the plain of Lower I'-gvpt, 
to which Memphis, with part of its far-extending 
necropolis, belonged pilitic^lly though not geogra- 
phically, was throughout as well provided with 
places of sepulture. The Israelites recalled these 
cities of the dead, and looked with Egyptian horror 
at the prospect that their carcases should be left on 
the face of the wilderness. Better, they said, to 
have continued to serve the Egyptians than thus to 
perish (12). Then Moses encouraged them, bidding 
them see how God would save them, and telling 
them that they should behold their enemies no 
more. There are tew c;\ses in the Bible in which 
those for whom a miracle is wrought are com- 
manded merely to stand by and see it. Generally 
the Divine support is promised to those who use 
their utmost exertions. It seems fiom the narra- 
tive that Moses did not know at this time how the 
l)eople would be saved, and spoke only from a hea]t 
full of faith, for we read, " And the Lord said 
unto Moses, VVherefore criest thou unto me ? speak 
unto the children of Israel, that they go fonvard : 
but lift thou up thy rod, and stietch out thine 
hand over the sea, and divide it : and the children 
of Israel shall go on dry [ground] through the 
midst of the sea" (15, 16). That night the two 
arnii&s, the fugitives and the pursuers, were en- 
camped near together. Between them was the 
pillar of the cloud, darkness to the F^gyptians and a 
light to the Israelites. The monuments of Egypt 
jvjrtray an encampment of an army of Rameses II., 
during a uimpaign in Syria ; it is well-planned and 
cai-efuUy guarded : the rude modern Arab encamp- 
ments bring before us that of Israel on this me- 
morable night. Perhaps in the camp of Israel the 
sounds of the hostile camp might be heard on the 
one hand, and on the other, the roaring of the sea. 
But the pillar was a ban'ier and a sign of deliver- 
ance. The time was now come for the great deci- 
sive miracle of the Exodus. "And Moses stretched 
out his hand over the sea : and the Lord caused 
the sea to go [back] by a strong east wind all that 
night, and maile the sea diT [land], and the waters 
wei-e dividfl. And the children of Israel went 
through the midst of the sea upon the dry [ground] : 
and the wateis [were] a wall unto them on their 
ric'ht hand, and on their left" (21, 22, comp. 29). 
The namitive distinctly states that a path was made 
through the sea, and that the waters were a wall 
on either hand. The tenn " wall " does not appear 
to oblige us to supiwse, as many have done, that 
the sea sUkA up like a clitf on either side, but 
Khould rather be considered to mean a barrier, as 
the fonner idea imjilies a seemingly-needless addi- 
tion to the miracle, while the latter seems to be not 
discordant with the language of the narrative. It 
was during the night that the Israelites crossed, 
and the Egypti.-ms liiilowed. In the morning watch, 
the l%>t third or fourth of the night, or the period 
Ix'fore sunrise, Phaianh's army was in full pureuit 
in the divide<l sea, and wius there miraculously 
troubled, so that the Egyptians sought to flee 
(2')-'27)). Then wa.s Mom-s commanded again to 
stretch out his hand, and the sea leturnal to its 
Ktipngth.nnd overwhelmed the Ej^yptians, of whom 
not one remaiu'-d alive (20-28). The sfcitement 
w so «?»plirit that there could be no reasonable 


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

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

Here, at the end of their long oppression, deli- 
vered finally from the Egyptians, the Israelites 
glorified God. In what words they sang his praise 
we know from the Song of Moses, which, in its 
vigorous brevity, represents the events of that me- 
morable night, scarcely of less moment than the 
night of the Passover (Ex. xv. 1-18: ver. 19 is 
probably a kind of comment, not part of the song). 
ISIoses seems to have smig this song with the men, 
Miriam with the women also singing and dancing, 
or perhaps there were two choruses (2U, 21). Such 
a picture does not recur in the history of the nation. 
Neither the triumphal Song of Deborah, nor the • 
rejoicing when the Temple was recovered fi'om the 
Syrians, celebrated so great a deliverance, or was 
joined in by the whole people. In leaving Goshen, 
Israel became a nation ; after crossing the sea, it 
was free. There is evidently great significance, as 
we have suggested, in St. Paul's use of this miracle 
as a type of baptism ; for, to make the analogy com- 
plete, it must have been the beginning of -a. new 
period of the life of the Israelites. 

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

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


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

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

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

1. Agmun (JIDJX : Kp'iKos, &v9pa^, fxiKpos. 
TeAos : circulus, fervens, refrenans) occurs Job 
xl. 26 (A. V. xli. 2), " Canst thou put agnion " 
(A. V. " hook ") into the nose of the crocodile ? 
Again, in xl. 12 (A. V. xli. 20), " out of his 
nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething-pot or 
agmon" (A. V. "caldron"). In Is. ix. 14, it is 
said Jehovah " will cut off from Israel head and tail, 
branch and agmon " (A. V. " rush"). The agmon 
is mentioned also as an Egyptian plant, in a sentence 
similar to the last, in Is. xix. 15 ; while from Iviii. 5 
we learn that the agmon had a pendulous panicle. 
There can be no doubt that the agmon denotes some 
aquatic reed-like plant, whether of the Nat. order 



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

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

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

a marshy pool or reed-bed." (See Jer. li. 32, for 
this latter signification.) There is some doubt as to 
the specific identity of the agmon, some believing 
that the word denotes " a rush '' as well as a 
"reed." See Rosenmiiller {Bih. Bot. j). 184) and 
Winer {Feahcorterh. ii. 484). Celsius has argued 
in favour of the Arundo phragmitis {Hieroh. i. 
465) ; we are inclined to adopt his opinion. That the 
agmon denotes some specific plant is probable both 
from the passages where it occurs, as well as from 
the fact that kdneh ( Hip) is the generic term for 
reeds in genei'al. The Armulo phragmitis (now 
the Phragmitis communis), if it does not occur in 
Palestine and Egypt, is represented by a very closely 
allied species, viz. the A. isiaca of Delisle. The 
drooping panicle of this plant will answer well to 
the " bowing down the head " of which Isaiah 
speaks; but, as there are other kinds of reed-like 
plants to which this character also belongs, it is 
impossible to do more than give a probable conjec- 
ture. The expression " Canst thou put an agmon " 
into the crocodile's nose? has been variously ex- 
plained. The most probable interpretation is that 
which supposes allusion is made to the mode of 
passing a reed or a rush through the gills of fish in 
order to carry them home ; but see the Commen- 
taries and Notes of Rosenmiiller, Schultens, Lee, 
Cary, Mason Good, &c. The agmon of Job xli. 20 
seems to be derived from an Arabic root signifying to 
" be burning : " hence the fervens of the V'ulg. — The 
Phragmitis belongs to the Nat. order Graminaceae. 
2. Gome, (KDi : ■trdiretpos, fii^Kivos, 'i\os : 
scirpens, scirpus, papyrus, juncxis), translated 
"rush" and "bulrush" by the A. V., without 
doubt denotes the celebrated paper-reed of the 
ancients (^Papyrus antiquorimi), a plant of the 
Sedge family, Cyperaceae, which formerly was 
common in some parts of Egypt. The Hebrew 
word is found four times in the Bible. Moses was 
hid in a vessel made of the papyrus (Ex. ii. 3). 
Transit boats were made out of the same material 
by the Ethiopians (Is. xviii. 2) ; the paper-reed is 
mentioned together with Kdneh, the usual generic 
term for a "reed," in Is. xxxv. 7, and in Job viii. 
11, where it is asked, " Can the papyrus plant grow 
without mire?" The modern Arabic name of this 

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

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

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


|. " Densi frutices, arundinetum, palus," 



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

I'apyrui aittii^uorum. 

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


there since the days of Theophrastus and Pliny, 
who t'ive a very accurate description ot this iii- 
terestfng plant. Theophrastus {Hist. Plant, iv. 
8 §4)%ays, "The papyrus grows also in Syria 
around the lake in which the sweet-scented reed is 
found, from which Antigonus used to make cordage 
for his ships." (See also Pliny, N. H. xiii. 11.) 
This plant has been found also in a small stream 
two miles N. of Jati'a. Dr. Hooker believes it is 
common in some parts of Syria : it does not occur 
anvwhere else in Asia ; it was seen by Lady Callcott 
on' the banks of the Anapus, near Syracuse, and Sir 
Joseph Banks possessed paper made of papyrus from 
the Lake f>f Thrasymene {Script. Herb. p. 379). 
The Hebrew name of this plant is derived from a 
root which means "to absorb," compare Lucan 
{Phars. iv. 1 36).'> The lower part of the papyrus 
reed was used as food by the ancient Egyptians ; 
« those who wish to eat the byblus dressed in the 
most delicate way, stew it in a hot pan and tlien eat 
it " (Herod, ii. 92 ; see also Theophr. Hist. Plant. 
iv. 9). The statement of Theophrastus with regard 
to the sweetness and Havour of the sap has been 
confirmed by some writers; the Chevalier Land- 
olina made papyrus from the pith of the plant, 
which, says Heeren {Histor. Ecs. Afric. Nat. ii. 
350, note), " is rather clearer than the Egyptian ;" 
but other wxiters say the stem is neither juicy nor 
1 agreeable. The papyrus plant {Papyrus anti- 
quorum) has an angular stem from 3 to 6 feet 
high, though occasionally it grows to the height of 
14 feet; it has no leaves; the flowers are in very 
small spikelets, which grow on the thread-like 
flowering branchlets which form a bushy crown to 
each stem ; it is found in stagnant pools as well as 
in running streams, in which latter case, according 
to Bruce, one of its angles is always opposed to the 
current of the stream. 

3. 'Aroth (niiy: rh aX' "rb x^'^P"" ■^«''") '^ 
translated "paper-reed" in Is. xix. 7, the only 
passage where the pi. noun occurs ; there is not the 
slightest authority for this rendering of the A. V., 
nor is it at all probable, as Celsius {Hierob. ii. 230) 
has remarked, that the prophet who speaks of the 
paper-reed under the name gome in the preceding 
chapter (xviii. 2), should in this one mention the 
same plant under a totally dillerent name. " Aroth" 
says Kimchi, " is the name to designate pot-herbs 
and green ])lants." The LXX. translate it by 
" all the green herbage " (comp. IPIN, Gen. xli. 2, 
and see Flag). The word is derived from 'drah, 
" to be bare," or " destitute of trees ;" it probably 
denotes the open grassy land on the banks of 
the Nile ; and seems to be allied to the Arabic 'ara 

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

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

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


calamus, arundo, fistula, statcrd), the generic name 
of a reed of any kind ; it occui-s in numerous pas- 
sages of the 0. T., and sometimes denotes the 
"stalk" of wheat (Gen. xli. 5, 22), or the 
" branches " of the candlestick (Ex. xxv. and 
xxxvii.); in Job xxxi. 22, kaneh denotes the bone 



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

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

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

Jer. vi. 20 ; which the A. V. renders " sweet cane," 
and " calamus." Whatever may be the substance 
denoted, it is certain that it was one of foreign 
importation, "from a far country" (Jer. \\. 20). 
Some writers (see Sprengel, Com. in Dioscor. i. 
xvii.) have sought to identify the kdneh bosem with 
the Acorus calmnus, the "sweet sedge," to which 
they refer the Ka.\afj.os 6.po>iJi.ariK6s of Dioscorides 
(i. 17), the KaXa/xos evwSrjs of Theophrastus 
{Hist. Plant, iv. 8 §4), which, according to this 
last named writer and Pliny (N. H. xii. 22), 
formerly grew about a lake " between Libanus and 
another mountain of no note ;" Strabo identifies this 
with the Lake of Gennesaret {Geog. x\n. c. 755, 
ed. Kramer). Burckhardt was unable to discover 
any sweet-scented reed or rush near the lake, though 
he saw many tall reeds there. " High reeds grow 
along the shore, but I found none of the aromatic 
reeds and rushes mentioned by Strabo " (Syria, p. 
319); but whatever may be the "fragrant reed" 
intended, it is certain that it did not grow in Syria, 
otherwise we cannot suppose it should be spoken of 
as a valuable product from a far country. Dr. Royle 
refers the KaKajxas a.pctiiJ.ariK6s of Dioscorides to a 
species of Andropogon, which he calls A. calamus 
aromaticus, a plant of remarkable fragrance, and a 
native of Central India, where it is used to mix with 
ointments on account of the delicacy of its odour 
(see Kitto's Cycl. Art. " Kaneh bosem ; " and a fig. 
of this plant in Royle's Illustrations of Himalayan 
Botany, p. 425, t. 97). It is possible this may be 
the " reed of fragrance ;" but it is hardly likely 
that Dioscorides, who, under the term axo7vos' 
gives a description of the Andropogon Schoenanthus, 
should speak of a closely allied species under a 
totally different name. Still there is no necessity 
to refer the Keneh bosem or hattob to the KdAajxas 
apu>fxartK6s of Dioscorides ; it may be represented by 
Dr. Royle's plant or by the Andropogon Schoenanthus, 
the lemon grass of India and Arabia. [W. H.] 

Androi>o<ion scho^uutMi 


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

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

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

REFINER (P|nV ; «l^yp)- The refiner's art 
w;is essential to the working of the precious metals. 
It consisted in the separation of the dross from tlie 
pure ore, which was effected by reducing the nietiil 
to a fluid state by the appliaition of heat, and by 
the aid of solvents, such as alkali » (Is. i. 25) or 
lead (Jer. vi. 29), which, amalgamating with the 
dross, permitted the extraction of the unadulterated 
metal. The term '' usually applied to refining had 
reference to the process of melting : occasionally, 
however, the effect of the process is described by a 
term "= borrowed from the filtering of wine. The 
instruments required by the refiner were a crucible 
or furnace,"* and a bellows or blow-pipe.* The 
workman sat at his work (Mai. iii. 3, "He shall 
sit as a refiner "), as represented in the cut of an 
Egyptian refiner already given (see vol. i. 750) : 
he was thus better enabled to watch the process, 
and let the metal run ofi' at the proper moment. 
[Minks; ii. 368 6.] The notices of refining are 
chiefly of a figurative character, and describe moral 
purification as the result of chastisement (Is. i. 25 ; 
Zech. xiii. 9 ; Mai. iii. 2, 3). The failure of the means 
to effect the result is graphically depicted in Jer. 
vi. 29 : " The bellows glow with the fire (become 
quite hot from exposure to the heat) : the lead 
(used as a solvent; is expended : f the refiner melts 
in vain, for the refuse will not be separated." The 
refiner appears, from the passage whence this is 
quoted, to have combined with his proper business 
that of assaying metals : " I have set thee for an 
assayer " K (lb. ver. 27). [\V. L. B.] 

REFUGE, CITIES OF. [Cities of Re- 

RE'GEM (On: 'PayeV; Alex. 'P6-ye> : Ee- 
gom). A son of jahdai, whose name unaccountably 
appears in a list of the descendants of Caleb by his 
concubine Ephah (1 Chr. ii. 47). Rashi considers 
Jahdai as the son of Ephah, but there appear no 
grounds for this iissumption. 

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

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

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


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

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

pix'^pos). 'I'his term had perhaps originally a more 
precise and independent meaning than it appears to 
a reader of the Authorized Version to possess. 

In the Old Test, it is used by the LXX. as the 
equivalent of the singular Hebrew word hac-Ciccar 
("I33n, literally "the round"), a word the topo- 
graphical application of which is not clea)-, but 
which seems in its earliest occurrences to denote 
the circle or oasis of cultivation in which stood 
Sodom and Gomorrah and the rest of the five " cities 
of the Ciccar" (Gen. xiii. 10, 11, 12, xix. 17, 25, 
28, 29 ; Deut. xxxiv. 3). Elsewhere it has a wider 
meaning, though still attached to the Jordan (2 Sam. 
xviii. 23 ; 1 K. vii. 46 ; 2 Chr. iv. 17 ; Neh. iii. 22, 
xii. 28). It is in this less restricted sense that 
irfpixcupos occurs in the New Test. In Matt. iii. 5 
and Luke iii. 3 it denotes the populous and flourish- 
ing region which contained the towns of Jericho and 
its dependencies, in the Jordan valley, enclosed in the 
amphitheatre of the hills of Quarantana (see Map, 
vol. ii. p. 664), a densely populated region, and im- 
portant enough to be reckoned as a distinct section 
of Palestine — " Jerusalem, Judaea, and all the ar- 
rondissement ^ of Jordan " (Matt. iii. 5, also Luke 
vii. 17). It is also applied to the district of Gen- 
nesaret, a region which presents certain similarities 
to that of Jericho, being enclosed in the amphi- 
theatre of the hills of Hattin and bounded in front 
by the water of the lake, as the other was by the 
Joidan, and also resembling it in being very thickly 
populated (Matt. xiv. 35 ; Mark vi. 55 ; Luke vi. 
37, vii. 17). [G.] 

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

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

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

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


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

RE'HOB (lint: 'Paaj3 : Eohoh). 1. The 
father of Hadadezer king of Zobah, whom David 
smote at the Euphrates (2 Sam. viii. 3, 12). 
Josej)lius {Ant. vii. 5, §1) calls him 'Apaos, and 
the Old Latin Version Arachus, and Blayney (on 
Zech. ix. 1) thinks this was his real name, and that 
he was called Rehob, or " charioteer," from the num- 
ber of chariots in his possession. The name appears 
to be peculiarly Syiian, for we find a district of 
Syria called Rehob, or Beth-Rehob (2 Sam. x. 6, 8). 

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

[W. A. W.] 

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

1. {'Padfi ; Alex. 'Poco0: Rohoh.y- The northern 
limit of the exploration of the spies (Num. xiii. 21). 
It is specified as being " as men come unto Hamath," 
or, as the phrase is elsewhere rendered, " at the 
entrance of Hamath," i. e. at the commencement of 
the territory of that name, by which in the early 
books of the Bible the great valley of Lebanon, the 
Bika'ah of the Prophets, and the Buhda of the 
modern Arabs, ieems to be roughly designated. 
This, and the consideration of the improbability that 
the spies went farther than the upper end of the 
Jordan valley (Kob. B. R. iii. 371), seems to fix 
the position of Rehob as not far from Tell el-Kady 
and Banias. This is confirmed by the statement 
of Judg. xviii. 28, that Laish or Dan {Tell el-Kady) 
was " in the valley that is by Beth-rehob." No 
trace of the name of Rehob or Beth-iehob has yet 
been met with in this direction. Dr. Robinson pro- 
poses to identify it with Ilunin, an ancient foiiress 
in the mountains X.W. of the plain of Huleh, the 
upper district of the Jordan valley. But this, 
though plausible, has no certain basis. 

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

REHOBO'AM (DVnni, " enlarger of the 
people " — see Ex. xxxiv. 2-1, and compare the name 
ZvpvS7]fj.os : 'PoPodfi: Roboam), son of Solomon, 
by the Ammonite princess Naamah (1 K. xiv. 21, 
31), and his successor (1 K. xi. 43). Fiom the 
eai'liest period of Jewish history we perceive symp- 
toms that the confederation of the tribes was but 
imperfectly cemented. The powerful Ephraim could 
never brook a position of inferiority. Throughout 
the Book of Judges (viii. 1, xii. 1) the Ephraimites 
show a spirit of resentful jealousy when any enter- 
prise is undertaken without their concurrence and 
active participation. From them had spiung 
Joshua, and afterwards (by his place of birth) 
Samuel might be considered theirs, and though the 
tribe of Benjamin gave to Israel its first king, yet 
it was allied by hereditary ties to the house of 
Joseph, and by geographical position to the terri- 
tory of Ephraim, so that up to David's accession 
the leadership was practically in the hands of the 
latter tribe. But Judah always threatened to be a 
formidable rival. During the earlier history, partly 
from the physical structure and situation of its 
territory (Stanley, S. 4' P- P- 162), which secluded 
it from Palestine just as Palestine by its geogra- 
phical character was secluded from the world, it had 
stood very much aloof from the nation [Judah], 
and even after Saul's death, apparently without 
waiting to consult their brethren, " the men of 
Judah came and anointed David king over the house 
of Judah '.' (2 Sara. ii. 4), while the other tribes 
adhered to Saul's family, thereby anticipating the 
final disruption which was afterwards to rend the 
nation pennanently into two kingdoms. But after 
seven years of disaster a reconciliation was forced 
upon the contending parties ; David was acknow- 
ledged as king of Israel, and soon after, by fixing 
his court at Jerusalem and bringing the tabernacle 
there, he transferred fiom Ephraim the greatness 
which had attached to Shechem as the ancient 
capital, and to Shiloh as the seat of the national 
worship. In spite of this he seems to have enjoyed 
great personal popularity among the Ephraimites, 
and to have treated many of them with special 
favour (1 Chr. sii. 30, xxvii. 10, 14), yet this 
roused the jealousy of Judah, and probably led to 
the revolt of Absalom. [Absalom.] Even after 
that perilous crisis was past, the old rivalry broke 
out afresh, and almost led to another insurrection 
(2 Sam. XX. 1, &c.). Compare Ps. Ixxviii. BO, 67, &c. 
in illustration of these remarks. Solomon's reign, 
from its sevei-e taxes and other oppressions, aggra- 
vated the discontent, and latterly, trom its irre- 
ligious character, alienated the prophets and pro- 
voked the displeasure of God. When Solomon's 

b Here the name is written in the fuller form of 




strong hand was withdrawn the crisis came. Reho- 
lioain selected Sheclicm as tlie i)lace of his coronation, 
probjibly as an act of concession to the Ephraimites, 
and perhaps in deterence to the suggestions of those 
old and wise coiuisellors of his father, whose advice 
he afterwards unha])pily rejected. From the pre- 
sent Hebrew text of 1 K. xii. the exact details of 
the transactions at Shechem are involved in a little 
uncertainty. The general facts indeed are cleai-. 
The peojile demanded a remission of the severe bur- 
dens irajwsed by Solomon, and Kehoboam promised 
them an answer in three days, during which time 
he consulted tii-st his father's counsellors, and then 
the young men " that were grown up with him, 
and whicli stood before him," whose answer shows 
how greatly during Solomon's later years the cha- 
racter of the Jewish court had dcgeneiated. Reject- 
ing the advice of the elders to conciliate the people 
at the beginning of his reign, and so make them 
" his servmits for ever," he returned as his reply, 
in the true spirit of an Eastern despot, the frantic 
bi-avado of his contemponu-ies : " Jly little finger 
shall be thicker than my lather's loins. ... I will 
add to your yoke; my father hath chastised you 
with whijjs, but I will chastise you with scorpions " 
(i. e. scourges furni^hed with sharp points *). There- 
upon arose the formidable song of insun-ection, heard 
once l^fore when the tribes quaiTelled after David's 
return from the war with Absalom : — 

What portion have we in David ? 
What Inheritance in Jesse's son .' 

To your tents, Israel ! 
Now see to thy own house, David ! 

Rehobaam sent Adoram or Adoniram, who had been 
chief receiver of tiie tribute during the reigns of his 
father and his grandfather (1 K. iv. 6; 2"Sam. xx. 
24), to reduce the lebels to reason, but he was 
stoned to death by them ; whereupon the king and 
his attendants fled in hot haste to Jerusalem. So 
far all is plain, but there is a doubt as to the part 
which Jeroboam took in these transactions. Ac- 
cording to 1 K'. xii. 3 he was summoned by the 
Ephraimites from Egypt (to which country he had 
flal fi-ora the anger of Solomon) to be their spokes- 
man at Reholwam's coronation, and actually made 
the spech in which a remission of burdens was 
requested. But, in apparent contradiction to this, 
we read in ver. 20 of the same chapter that after 
the success of the insui-rection and Rehoboam's 
Hight, " when all Israel heard that Jeroboam was 
come again, they sent and called him unto the con- 
gi-egation an<l made him king." But there is rea- 
.son to think that ver. 3 has been interpolated. It 
is not found in the LXX., which makes no mention 
of JerolM)am in this chapter till ver. 20, substi- 
tuting in ver. 3 for " Jeroboam and all the congre- 
gation of Israel came and spoke unto I'lehoboam " the 
wonis, Kai i\d\ri<T(v 6 \abs irphs rhv /8a(riA.eo 
'Po0o(i/J.. So too Jeroboam's name is omitted by 
the LXX. in ver. 12. Moreover we find in the 
LXX. a long supplement to this 12th chapter, evi- 
dr-ntiy ancient, and at least in parts authentic, con- 
taining fuller detJiils of Jeioboam's biography than 
the Hebrew. [Ji;itoitOAii ] In this we read that 
after Solomon's death he returned to his native 
jdace, Sarim in Ephraim, which he fbrtitied, and 
live<i there quietly, watching the turn of events, 
till the long-expected rebellion broke out, when the 

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


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

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


borne before him in procession by the body-guard, 
as if nothing had been changed since his father's 
time (Ewald, Geschichtc des V. I. iii. 348, 464). 
.^hishak's success is commemorated by sculptures 
discovered by Champollion on the outside of the 
gi-eat temple at Karnak, where among a long list 
of captured towns and provinces occurs the name 
Melchi Jiulah (kingdom of Judah). It is said that 
the features of the captives in these sculptures are 
immistakeably Jewish (Rawlinson, Herodotus, ii. 
o76, and Bampton Lectures, p. 126; Buusen, 
Egypt, iii. 242). After this 2:reat humiliation the 
moral condition of Judah seems to have improved 
(2 Chr. xii. 12), and the rest of Kehoboam's life to 
have been unmarked by any events of impoiiance. 
He died B.C. 958, after a reign of 17 years, having 
ascended the throne B.C. 975 at the age of 41 
(1 K. xiv. 21 ; 2 Chr. xii. 13). In the addition to 
the LXX. already mentioned (inserted after 1 K. 
xii. 24) we read that he was 16 yeai"S old at his 
accession, a misstatement probably founded on a 
wrong interpretation of 2 Chr. xiii. 7, where he is 
called "young" (i.e. new to his work, inexpe- 
rienced) and " tender-hearted " (33?"T]n, wanting 

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

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

evpvxa^pia,; Veneto-Gk. ai UXaTelai : Latitude). 
The third of the series of wells dug by Isaac (Gen. 
xxvi. 22). He celebrates his triumph and bestows 
its name on the well in a fragment of poetry of the 
same nature as those in which Jacob's wives give 
names to his successive children: — "He called the 
name of it Rehoboth (' room,') and said, 

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

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

•> Dr. Robinson could not find the well. Dr. .Stewart 
found it " regularly built, 12 feet in circumference," but 
" completely filled up." Mr. Rowlands describes it as 
" an ancient well of living and good water." Who shall 
decide on t?stimony so curiously contradictory .' 



and more than that distance S. of the most probable 
situation of Gerar. It therefore seems unsafe with- 
out further proof to identify it with Rehoboth, as 
Rowlands (in WiUiams' Holy City, i. 465), Stewart 
( Tent and Khan, 202), and Van de Velde '■ (3fe- 
inoir, 343) have done. At the same time, as is 
admitted by Dr. Robinson, the existence of so large 
a place here without any apparent mention is mys- 
terious. All that can be said in favour of the 
identity of Paihaibeh with Rehoboth is said by Dr. 
Bonar {Desert of Sinai, 316), and not without con- 
siderable force. 

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

RE'HOBOTH, THE CITY (TV nhhn, i. e. 
Rechoboth'Ir; Samar. nnm; Sam.Vers.« pt3D : 
'Poco/So) /8Tr($Ais; Alex. 'Pow^ois : plateae cieitatis). 
One of the four cities built by Asshur, or by 
Nimrod in Asshur, according as this difficult pas- 
sage is translated. The four were Nineveh ; Reho- 
both-Ir ; Calah ; and Resen, between Nineveh and 
Calah (Gen. x. 11). Nothing certain is known of 
its position. The name of Ptahabeh is still attached 
to two places in the region of the ancient Meso- 
potamia. They lie, the one on the western and the 
other on the eastern bank of the Euphrates, a few 
miles below the confluence of the Khabur. Both 
are said to contain extensive ancient remains. That 
on the eastern bank bears the affix of 7nalik or 
royal, and this Bunsen {Bibelwerk) and Kalisch 
{Genesis, 261) propose as the representative of 
iiehoboth. Its distance from Kalah-Sherghat and 
Ninirtid (nearly 200 miles) is perhaps an obstacle 
to this identification. Sir H. Rawlinson (^Athen- 
aeum, April 15, 1854) suggests Selerrdyah in the 
immediate neighbourhood of Kalah, " where there 
are still extensive ruins of the Assyrian period," 
but no subssquent discoveries appear to have con- 
firmed this suggestion. The Samaritan Version 
(see above) reads Sutcan for Rehoboth ; and it is 
remarkable that the name Sutcan should be found 
in connexion with Calah in an inscription on the 
breast of a statue of the god Nebo which Sir H. 
Rawlinson disinterred at Nimrud {Athenaeum, as 
above,. The Sutcan of the Samaritan Version is 
commonly supposed to denote the Sittacene of the 
Greek geographers (Winer, Realicb. " Rechoboth 
Ir "). But Sittacene was a district, and not a city 
as Rehoboth-Ir necessarily was, and, farther, being 
in southern Assyria, would seem to be too distant 
from the other cities of Nimrod. 

St. Jerome, both in the Vulgate and in his 
Quaestiones ad Genesim (probably from Jewish 
sources), considers Rehoboth-Ir as refeiTing to 
Nineveh, and as meaning the " streets of the city." 
The reading of the Targums of Jonathan, Jerusalem, 
and liiibbi Joseph, on Gen. and 1 Chron., viz., 
Platiah, Platiutha, are probably only transcrip- 
tions of the Greek word irKariiai, which, as found 
in the well known ancient city I'iataea, is the exact 

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

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

3 U 


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

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

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

RE'HUM (Q-inT : 'Veovjx ; Alex. 'lepeou/^ : 
Rehum). 1. One of the " children of the province " 
who went up from Babylon with Zerubbabel (Ezr. 
ii, 2). In Neh. vii. 7 he is called Nehum, and in 
1 Esd. V. 8 RoiMUS. 

2. {Reum.) " Rehum the chancellor," with 
Shimshai the scribe and otheis, wrote to Aiiaxerxes 
to prevail upon him to stop the rebuilding of the 
walls and temple of Jerusalem (Ezr. iv. 8, 9, 17, 
23). He was perhaps a kind of lieutertant-governor 
of the province under the king of Persia, holding 
apparently the same office as Tatnai, who is de- 
scribed in Ezr. v. 6 as taking part in a similar 
transaction, and is there allied " the governor on 
this side the river." The Chaldee title, OyD-^yil, 

b^el-te'em, lit. " lord of decree," is left untranslated 
in the LXX. BaXrayU, and the Vulgate Beeltcem ; 
and the rendering " chancellor " in the A. V. appears 
to have been derived from Kimchi and others, who 
explain it, in consequence of its connexion with 
" scribe," by the Hebrew word which is usually 
rendered " recorder." This appears to have been 
the view taken by the author of I Esd. ii. 25, 6 
ypd<p(ai' TO TTpoffTriirrovTa, and by Josephus {A)it. 
xi. 2, §1 ), 6 irdvTa to irpaTrSixeva ypd(paiv. The 
former of these seems to be a gloss, lor the Chaldee 
title is also represented by BeeArefl/UOS. 

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

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


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

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

REINS, i. e. kidneys, from the Latin renes. 
1. The word is used to translate the Hebrew niv3, 
except in the Pentateuch and in Is. xxxiv. 6, where 
"kidneys" is employed. In the ancient system 
of physiology the kidneys were believed to be the 
seat of desire and longing, which accounts for their 
often being coupled with the heart (Ps. vii. 9, 
xxvi. 2 ; Jer. xi. 20, xvii. 10, &c.). 

2. It is once used (Is. xi. 5) as the equivalent of 
□'^*?n, elsewhere translated " loins." [G.] 

REK'EM (Di;5T : 'PokoV, 'Vo^Sk ; Alex. '7ok6ix : 
Recem). 1. One of the five kings or chieftains of 
Midian slain by the Israelites (Num. xxxi. 8 ; Josh, 
xiii. 21) at the time that Balaam fell. 

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

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

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

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

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


REM'ETH (nO"] : 'Pefifids ; Alex. 'Pa/x^o0 : 
RaiaetK). One of the towns of Issachar (Josh. six. 
21), occurring in the list next to En-gannim, the 
modem Jenvi. It is pi'obably (though not cei- 
tainly) a distinct place from the Rajioth of 1 Chr. 
vi. 73. A place bearing the name of Rameh is 
found on the west of the tracif from Samaria to 
Jenin, about 6 miles N. of the former and 9 S.W. 
of the latter (Porter, Handh. 348 « ; Van de Velde, 
Map). Its situation, on an isolated rocky tell in 
the middle of a green plain buried in the hills, is 
quite in accordance with its name, which is pro- 
bably a mere variation of Ramah, " height." But 
it ajipears to be too far south to be within the terri- 
tory of Issachar, which, as far as the scanty indica- 
tions of the record can be made out, can hardly 
have extended below the southern border of the 
plain of Esdraelon. 

For Schwarz's conjecture that Rameh is Ra- 
MATHAIJI-ZOPHIM, see that article (p. 999). [G.] 

EEM'MON \{'\iy), i- e. Rimmon : 'Epe/j-ixdy : » 
Alex. ''Pefxfiaid : Remrnon). A town in the allotment 
of Simeon, one of a group of four (Josh. xix. 7). 
It is the same place which is elsewhere accurately 
given in the A. V. as Rimmon ; the inaccuracy both 
in this case and that of Remmon-methoar having 
no doubt arisen from our translators inadvertently 
following the Vulgate, which again followed the 
LXX. [G.] 

REM'MON-METH'OAR (-INhrsn |""IJ3"1, i. e. 
Rimmon ham-methoar : 'Peix/xufad yiadapao^a, ; 
Alex. "PefjLfjiwvafi fj.a6apifj. : Remmon, Amthar). A 
place which formed one of the landmarks of the 
eastern boundary of the territory of Zebulun (Josh. 
xix. 13 only). It occurs between Eth-Katsin and 
Neah. Methoar does not really form a part of the 
name; but is the Pual of "IXR, to stietch, and 
should be translated accordingly (as in the maigin 
of the A. V.) — " R. which reaches to Neah." This 
is the judgment of Gesenius, Thes. 1292a, Rodiger, 
lb. 1491a; Fiirst, Handwb. ii. 512a, and Bunsen, 
as well as of the ancient Jewish commentator 
Hashi, who quotes as his authority the Targum 
of Jonathan, the text of which has however been 
subsequently altered, since in its present state it 
agrees with the A. V. in not translating the word. 
The latter course is taken by the LXX. and Vul- 
gate as above, and by the Peshito, .Junius and Tre- 
mellius, and Luther. The A. V. has here further 
erroneously tbllowed the Vulgate in giving the first 
part of the name as Remmon instead of Rimmon. 

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



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

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

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


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

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

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

Besides those divinities represented on the monu- 
ments of Egypt which have Egyptian forms or 
names, or botli, others have foreign forms or names, 
or both. Of the latter, some appear to have been 
introduced at a very remote age. This is certainly 
the case with the principal divinity of Menriphis, 
Ptah, the Egyptian Hephaestus. The luxme Ptali 
is from a Semitic root, for it signifies "open," and 
in Heb. we find the root fin 2, and its cognates, 

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

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

3 U 2 



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

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

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

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

We have no clue to the exact time of tlie intro- 
duction of these divinities into Egypt, nor, except 
in one case, to any particular places of their wor- 
ship. Their names occur as e:vrly as the period of 
the xviiith and xixth dymisties, and it is therefore 
not improbable that they were introduced by the 
Shepherds. ASTAHTA is mentioned in a tablet 
of Amenoph U., opposite Memphis, which leads to 
the conjecture that she was the foreign Venus there 
worshipped, in the quarter of the Phoenicians of 
Tyre, according to Herodotus (ii. 112). It is ob- 
sen-able that the Shepherds worshipped SUTEKH, 
conesjwnding to SE'l'H, and also called BAR, that 
is, P.:ud, and that, under king APEPEE, he was the 
sole god of the foreigners. SUTElvH was probablv 
a foreign god, and w;u5 certainly identified witii 
Biuil. The idea that the Shepherds introduced the 
foi-eign gods is therefore partly confirmed. As to 
RENPU and KEN we c;m only otler a conjecture. 
They occur together, and KEN is a form of the 
Syrian goddess, and also beais some relation to the 
Egyptian god of productiveness, KHEM. Their 
simihuity to B;uil and Ashtoreth seems strong, and 
pei-hajjs it is not unreasonable to suppose that" they 
were the divinities of some tribe from the east, 
not of Plioenicians or Canaanites, settled in Euypt 
during the Shepherd-])eriod. The naked gwMess 
KEN would suggest such worship as that of the 
Babylonian Mylitta, but the thoroughly Shemite 
ajpix-arance of RENPU is rather in favour of an 

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

tlip Hupposed cognate pZ^JULTlI? pOJULITI, S. 

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

x*-(, JULejutqi, juiertfie, 

A«.citqi, s juLGJULqc, jULitfie, m.>- 


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

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

We can now endeavour to explain the passages 
in which Chiun and Remplian occur. The Slaso- 
retic text of Amos v. 26 reads thus : — " But ye 
bare the tent [or ' tabernacle '] of your king and 
Chiun your images, the star of your gods [or 
' your god '], which ye made for yourselves." In 
the LXX. we find remarkable differences: it reads: 
Kal aveXd^ere rrjv ffK7)v))v rov MoKhx, Kol rh 
aarpou rod Oeov v/xaiv 'Paitpav, tovs tvttovs 
avrSiv oils iiroirjffaTf iavro^s. The Vulg. agrees 
with the Masoretic text in the order of the clauses, 
though omitting Chiun or Remphan. " Et portastis 
tabeinaculum Moloch vestro, et imaginem idolorum 
vestrorum, sidus dei vestri, quae fecistis vobis." 
The passage is cited in the Acts almost in the words 
of the LXX. : — " Yea, ye took up the tabernacle 
of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, 
figures which ye made to worship them" {Kal 
di/eAa^Sere rr/r (T/crji/r/i' rod MoXhx, Kai rh aarpov 
rod 6eoD vnav 'V€fjL(pav, tovs tvttovs ovs iiroii)- 
auTe trpocTKVvelv avrols). A slight change in the 
Hebrew would enable us to read Moloch (Malcam 
or Milcom) instead of " your king." Beyond this 
it is extremely difficult to explain the differences. 
The substitution of Remphan for Cliiun cannot be 
accounted for by verbal criticism. The Hebrew does 
not seem as distinct in meaning as the LXX., and if 
we may conjecturally emend it from the latter, the 
last clause would be, " your images which ye made 
for yourselves:" and if we further transpose Chiun 
to the place of " your god Remphan," in the LXX., 

D370 niDD nx would correspond to 1313 flX 
IT'S D3\n7X , but how can we account for such a 
transposition as would thus be supposed, which, be 
it remembered, is less likely in the Hebrew than in 
a translation of a difficult passage ? If we compare 
the Masoretic text and the supposed oiiginal, we 
perceive that in the former D3^?D^V JV3 corre- 
sponds in position to D3''n'?X 3313, and it d.ies 
not seem an unwarrantable conjecture that ]V'2 
having been by mistake written in the place of 
3313 by some copyist, D3''D^V was also trans- 


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

The tent or tabernacle of Moloch is supposed by 
Gesenius to have been an actual tent, and lie com- 
pares the (TKrjv^ Upd of the Carthaginians (Diod. 
Sic. XX. 65 ; Lex. s. v. H-IBD). But there is 
some difficulty in the idea that the Israelites carried 
about so large an object for the purpose of idolatry, 
and it seems more likely that it was a small model 
of a larger tent or shiine. The reading Moloch 
appears preferable to " your king ;" but the men- 
tion of the idol of the Ammonites as worshipped in 
the desert stands quite alone. It is perhaps worthy 
of note that there is reason for supposing th.\t 
Moloch was a name of the planet Saturn, and that 
this planet was evidently supposed by the ancient 
translators to be intended by Chiun and Kemphan. 
The correspondence of Remphan or Raiphan to 
Chiun is extremely remarkable, and can, we think, 
only be accounted for by the supposition that the 
LXX. translator or translators of the prophet had 
Egyptian knowledge, and being thus acquainted with 
the ancient joint worship of Ken and Ronpu, sub- 
stituted the latter for the former, as they may have 
been unwilling to repeat the name of a foreign 
Venus. The star of Remphan, if indeed the passage 
is to be read so as to connect these words, would 
be especially appropriate if Remphan were a pla- 
netary god ; but the evidence for this, especially as 
partly founded upon an Arab, or Pers. word like 
Chiun, is not sufficiently strong to enable us to lay 
any stress upon the agreeinent. In hieroglyphics 
the sign for a star is one of the two composing 
the word SEB, " to adore," and is undoulDtedly 
tliere used in a symbolical as well as a phonetic 
sense, indicating that the ancient Egyptian religion 
was partly derived from a sj'stem of star-worship ; 
and there are representations on the monuments of 
mythical creatures or men adoring stars {Ancient 
£iji/ptians, pi. 30 A.). We have, however, no 
positive indication of any figure of a star being used 
as an idolatrous object of worship. From the 
manner in which it is mentioned we may conjecture 
that the star of Remphan was of the same character 
as the tabernacle of Moloch, an object coimected 
with false worship rather than an image of a false 
god. According to the LXX. reading of the last 
clause it might be thought that these objects were 
actually images of Moloch and Remphan ; but it 
must be remembered that we cannot suppose an 
image to have had the form of a tent, and that the 
version of the passage in the Acts, as well as the 
Masoretic text, if in the latter case we may change 
the order of the words, give a clear sense. As to 
the meaning of the last clause, it need only be 
remarked that it does not oblige us to infer that 
the- Israelites made the images of the false gods, 
though they may have done so, as in the case of the 
golden calf: it may mean no more than that they 
adopted these gods. 

It is to be observed that the whole passage does 
not indicate that distinct Egyptian idolatry was 
])ractised by the Israelites. It is very remarkable 
that the only false gods mentioned as worshipped 
by them in the desert should be probably Moloch, 
;md Chiun, and Remphan, of which the latter two 
wei-e foreign divinities worshipped in Egypt. From 
this we may reasonably infer, that while the Israelites 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Son of Binea, and descendant of Saul and Jo- 
nathan (1 Chr. ix. 43). In 1 Chr. viii. 37 he is 
called Rapha. 

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

EEPH'AIM. [Giants, vol. i. 6876.] 
D^XS"! : v KOiXas tSiv Tiravwv, and tu>v Tl- 
yavTuv ; k. 'Pa(pa€'Lfi; in Isaiah (pdpay^ (TTcped), 
2 Sam. V. 18, 22, xxiii. 13; 1 Chr. xi. 15, xiv. 9 ; 
Is. xvii. 5. Also in Josh. xv. 8, and xviii. 16, 
where it is translated in the A. V. " the valley of 
the giants" (77) 'Pacpaeiv and "E/xeK 'Pa^aelv). 
A spot which was the scene of some of David's 
most remarkable adventures. He twice encoun- 
tered the Philistines there, and inflicted a destruc- 
tion on them and on their idols so signal that it 
gave the place a new name, and impressed itself on 
the popular mind of Israel with such distinctness 
that the Prophet Isaiah could employ it, centuries 
after, as a symbol of a tremendous impending judg- 
ment of God — nothing less than the desolation and 
destruction of the whole earth (Is. xxviii. 21, 22). 
[Perazim, mount.] 

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

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

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

This narrative seems to imply that the valley 
of Wephaim was near Bethlehem ; but unfortu- 
nately neither this nor the notice in Josh. xv. 8 
and .\viii. IG, in connexion with the boundary line 
between .ludah and Benjamin, gives any clue to 
its situation, still less docs its connexion with tiie 
grove.-, ot' mulherrv trees or Baca (2 Sam. v. 23). 
itself unknown. Josephus {Ant. vii. 12, §4) men- 
tions it as •' the valley which extends (from Jeru- 
salem^ to the citv of Bethlehem." 

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

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

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

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

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

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

• On tlie oilier hand it Ih somewhat sinxiilar that the 

KEPH'IDTM (DnSt: 'Pa(f.iSlv). Ex. xvii. 1, 
8 • xix. 2. The name n)eaus " rests " or " stays ;" 
the place lies in the march of the Israelites from 
Egypt to Sinai. The " wilderness of Sin " was 
succeeded by Kephidim according to these passages, 
but in Num. xxxiii. 12, 13, Dophkah and Alush 
are mentioned as occurring between the people's 
exit from that wilderness and their entry into 
the latter locality. There is nothing known of 
these two places "which will enable us to fix the 
site of Kephidim. [Alcsh ; Dophkaii.] Lepsius' 
view is that Moavt Serbdl is the true Horeb, and 
that Rephidim is Wady Feiran, the well known 
valley, richer in water and vegetation than any 
other in the peninsula (Lepsius' Tour from Thebes 
to Sinai, 184.), pp. 21, 37). This would account 
tor the expectation of finding water here, which, 
however, from some unexplained cause tailed. In 
Ex. xvii. G, " the rock in Horeb" is named as the 
source of t.he water miraculously supplied. On the 
other hand, the language used Ex. xix. 1, 2, seems 
precise, as regards the point that the journey from 
Kephidim to Sinai was a distinct stage. The time 
from the wilderness of Sin, reached on the fifteenth 
dav of the second month of the E.xodus (Ex. xvi. 1), 
to the wilderness of Sinai, reached on the first day 
of the third month (xix. 1 ), is from fourteen to sixteen 
days. This, if we follow Num. xxxiii. 12-15, has 
to be distributed between the four march-stations 
Sin, Dophkah, Alush, and Kephidim, and their cor- 
responding stages of journey, which would allow two 
days' repose to every day's march, as there are four 
marches, and 4x2-1-4=: 12, leaving two daj's over 
from the fourteen. The first gi-and object being 
the arrival at Sinai, the intervening .distani« may 
probably have been despatched with all possible 
speed, considering the weakness of the host by reason 
of women, &c. The name Horeb is by Kobinson 
taken to mean an extended range or region, some 
part of which was near to Kephidim, which he 
places at Wadij esh Sheikh,'^ running from N.E. to 
S.W., on the W. side of Gebel Fureia, opposite the 
northern face of the modern Horeb. [Sinai.] It 
joins the Wady Feiran. The exact spot of Robin- 
son's Kephidim is a defile in the esh Sheikh visiteil 
and deso'ibed by Burckhardt {Syria, &c., 488) as 
at about five hours' distance fiom where it issues 
from the plain A> Uaheh, narrowing between abrupt 
cliffs of blackened granite to about 40 feet in width. 
Here is also the ti aditional " Seat of Moses " (Robin- 
sou, i. 121). The opinion of Stanley {S. and P. 
40-42), on the contrary, with Ritter i xiv. 740, 741), 
places Kephidim in Wady Feiran, where the traces 
of building and cultivation still attest the import- 
ance of this valley to all occupants of the desert. It 
narrows in one spot to 100 yards, showing high 
mountains and thick woods, with gardens and date- 
groves.. Here stood a Christian church, city and 
episcopal residence, under the name of Paran, before 
the foundation of the convent of Mount St. Ca- 
therine by Justinian. It is the finest valley in the 

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

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

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


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

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

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



Instances of such transfers of name are not unfre- 

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

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

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

RE'U (-ly"! : 'Pa7a5 in Gen., 'Paydv in Chr. : 

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

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

Joseph. ''PovfirtKos : Pesh. Syr. Ruhil, and so also 
in Arab. vers, of Joshua: Ruben), Jacob's first- 
born child (Gen. xxix. 32), the son of Leah, appa- 
rently not born till an unusual interval had elapsed 
after the marriage (31 ; Joseph. Ant. i. 19, §8). 
This is perhaps denoted by the name itself, whether 
we adopt the obvious signification of its present 
form — reu hen, i. e. " behold ye, a son !" (Gesen. 
Thes. 12476) — or (2) the explanation given in the 
text, which seems to imply that the original form 
was ^i^yS ''•1t<"l, rau beonyi, " Jehovah hath seen 

my affliction," or (3) that of Josephus, who uni- 
formly presents it as Roubel, and explains it 
{Ant. i. 19, §8) as the "pity of God" — eAeoc tov 
@iov, as if fi-om 7K3 ^l^l (Fiirst, Handwh. ii. 

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

» Eedslob {Die AUtestamentl. Namen, S6) maintains 
that Reubel is the original form of the name, which was 
corrupted into Ileuben, as Bethel into Beitln, and Jezreel 
into Serin. He treats it as signifying the " flock of Bel," 
a deity whose worship greatly flourished in the neigh- 
bouring country of Moab, and who under the name of 
Nebo had a famous sanctuary in the very territory of 

Reuben. In this case it would be a parallel to the title, 
" people of Chemosh," which is bestowed on Moab. The 
alteration of the obnoxious syllable in Eeute? would, on 
this theory, find a parallel in the MeribbaoJ and EshfcoaJ 
of Saul's family, who became MephitosAeift and Ish- 



panillel, in some of its circumstances, to the intrigue 
of Diivid with Batlislieba. Some severe temptation 
there must surely have been to impel Keuben to 
an act which, regiu-ded in its social rather than in 
its moral aspect, would be pcculiai-ly abhoivent to 
a p;»triarchal society, and which is specially and 
repeatedly reprobated in the law of Moses. The 
Kiibbinical vereion of the occun-ence (as given in 
Targ. I'seudojon.) is very characteristic, and well 
illustrates the ditJi^rence between the spirit of early 
and of late Jewish history. " Keuben went and 
disordereil the couch of Bilhah, his father's concu- 
bine, which w;is placed right opposite the couch of 
Leah, and it was counted unto him as if he had 
lain with her. And when Israel heard it it dis- 
please>l him, and he Kud 'Lo! an unworthy per- 
son shall proceed from me, as Ishmael did from 
Abraham and Esau from my father.' And the 
Holy Spirit answered him and said ' All are 
righteous, and there is not one unworthy among 
them.' " Reuben's an.\'iety to save Joseph is repre- 
sented as arising from a desire to conciliate Jacob, 
and his absence while Joseph was sold from his 
sitting alone on the mountains in penitent fasting. 

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

At the time of the migration into Egypt "^ 
Reuben's sons were four (Gen. xlvi. 9 ; 1 Chr. v. 3). 
From them sprang tlie chief flmiilies of the tribe 
(Num. .\.\-vi. 5-11). One of these families — that of 
Pallu — became notoiious as producing Eliab, whose 
sons or descendants, Dathan and Abiram, perished 
with their kinsman On in the divine retribution for 
their conspiracy against Moses (Num. xvi. 1, sxvi. 
8-11). The census at Mount Sinai (Num. i. 20, 
21, ii. 11) shows that at the Exodus the numbers 
of the tribe were 46,500 men above twenty years 
of age, and fit for active warlike sei-vice^ In point 
of numeriGil strength, Reuben was then sixth on 
the list. Gad, with 45,650 men, being next below. 
On the borders of Cana;in, after the plague which 
))unished the idolatry of Baalpeor, the numbers 
had fallen slightly, and were 43,730 ; Gad was 
4o,50o ; and the position of the two in the list is 
lower than before, Ephraim and Simeon being the 
only two smaller tribes (Num. x.xvi. 7, &c.). 

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


but the second line has been interpreted in two 
exactly opposite ways. 1. By the LXX. : — 
" And let his men e be many in number." 
This has the disadvantage that "ISpD is never 

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

2. That of our own Auth. Version: — 

■' And let not his men be few." 
Here the negative of the first line is pi-esuroed to 
convey its force to the second, though not there 
expressed. This is countenanced by the ancient 
Syriac Version (Peshito) and the translations of 
Junius and Tremellius, and Schott and Winzer. It 
also has the important support of Gesenius {Thes. 
908 a, and Pent. Sam. p. 44). 

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

" And let his dead be few '' — 

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

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

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

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

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



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

^ In the Revised Translation of the Holy Scriptures by 
the Kev. C. Wellbeloved and others (London, 1857) the 
passage is rendered — 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Thus remote from tlie central seat of the national 
government and of tlio nationid religion, it is not 
to be wondered at that Reuben lelinquished the 
faith of Jehovah. " They went a whoring after 
the gods of the people of the land whom God de- 
stroyed before them," and the last historical notice 
which we possess of them, while it records tliis 
fact, records also as its natural consequence that the 
Keuhenites and Gadites, and the half-tribe of Ma- 
na.ssdi were c;irried off by Pul and Tiglath-Pileser, 
and placed in the distiicts on and about the river 
Kkabur in the upper part of Mesopotamia — " in 
Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and the river Gozan" 
(1 Chr. V. 26). [G.] 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. Language. 

D. Contents and Structure. 

E. History of Interpretation. 

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


of the Beast, he cites in support of it not only the 
old correct copies of the book, but also the oral 
testimony of the very per.sons who themselves had 
seen St. John face to face. It is obvious that 
Ii'enaeus' reference for information on such a point 
to those contemporaries of St. John implies his 
umioubting belief that they, in common with him- 
self, viewed St. John as the writer of the book. 
Liicke (p. 574) suggests that this view was possibly 
gi-oundless because it was entertained before the 
learned fathers of Alexandria had set the example 
of historical criticism ; but his suggestion scarcely 
weakens the force of the fact that such was the 
belief of Asia, and it appears a strange suggestion 
when we remember that the critical discernment 
of the Alexandrians, to whom he refers, led them to 
coincide with Irenaeus in his view. (/) Apollonius 
(circ. 200) of Ephesus (?), in controversy with the 
jlontanists of Phrygia, quoted passages out of the 
Revelation of John, and narrated a miracle wrought 
by John at Ephesus (Euseb. H. E. v. 18). (g) Cle- 
ment of Alexandria (circ. 200,) quotes the book as 
the Revelation of John {Stromata, vi. 13, p. 667), 
and as the work of an Apostle [Paed. ii. 12, p. 207). 
(A) Tertullian (a.d. 207), in at least one place, quotes 
by name " the Apostle John in the Apocalypse " 
[Adv. Marcion. iii. 14). (i) Hippolytus (circ! 230) 
is said, in the inscription on his statue at Rome, to 
have composed an apology for the Apocalypse and 
Gospel of St. John the Aposfle. He quotes it as 
the work of St. John {De Antickristo, §36, p. 756, 
ed. Migne). (7) Origen (circ. 233), in his Com- 
mentary on St. John, quoted by Eusebius {H. E. 
vi. 25), says of the Apostle, " he wrote also the 
Revelation." The testimonies of later writers, in 
the third and fourth centuries, in favour of St. 
John's authorship of the Revelation, are equally 
distinct and far more numerous. They may be 
seen quoted at length in Liicke, pp. 628-638, or in 
Dean Alford's Prolegomena {N. T., vol. iv. pt. ii.). 
It may suffice here to say that they include the 
names of Victorinus, Methodius, Ephrem Syrus, 
Epiphanius, Basil, Hilary, Athanasius, Gregory, 
Didymus, Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome. 

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


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

Such is the evidence in favour of St. .lohn's author- 
ship and of the canonical autiioritj' of this book. The 
Ibllowing facts must be weighed on the other side. 
Marcion, who regarded all the Apostles except 
St. Paul as corrupters of the truth, rejected the 
Apocalypse and all other books of the N. T. which 
were not written by St. Paul. The Alogi, an 
obscure sect, circa 180 A.D., in their zeal against 
Montanism, denied the existence of spiritual gifts 
in the Church, and rejected the Revelation, saying 
it was the work, not of John, but of Cerinthus 
(Kpiphauius, Ado. ILier. li.). The Roman pres- 
byter Caius (circa 19(5 A.D.), who also wrote 
against Jlontanisni, is quoted by Eusebius {H. E. 
iii. 28) as ascribing certain Hevelations to Cerin- 
thus : but it is doubted (see liouth, Eel. Sacr. ii. 
138) whether the lievelatiou of St. John is the 
book to which Caius refers. But the testimony 
which is considere'd the most imponani of ail hi 
ancient times against the Revelation is contained 
iu a fragment of Dionysius of Alexandria, circa 
240 A.D., the most influential and perhaps the 
ablest bishop in that age. The ]jassage taken from 
a book On the Promises, written in reply to Nepos, 
a learned Judaising Chiliast, is quoted by Eusebius 
(//. E. vii. 25). The principal points in it are 
these: — Dionj'sius testifies that some writers before 
him altogether repudiated the Revelation as a 
forgery of Cerinthus ; many brethren, however, 
prized it very highly, and Dionysius would not 
venture to reject it, but received it in faith as 
containing things too deep and too sublime for his 
understanding. [In his Epistle to Herraammon 
(Euseb. //. E. vii. 10) he quotes it as he would 
quote Holy Scriptui'e.] He accepts as true what 
is stated in the book itself, that it was written by 
John, but ho argues that the way in which that 
name is mentioned, and the general character of 
the language, are unlike what we should expect 
from John the Evangelist and Apostle ; that there 
were many Johns in that age. He would not say 
that John Mark was the writer, since it is not 
known that he was in Asia. He supposes it must 
be the work of some John who lived in Asia ; and 
he observes there are said to be two tombs in 
Ephesus, each of which bears the name of John. 
He then points out at length the superiority of the 
style of the Gospel and the First Epistle of John 
to the style of the Apocalypse, and says, in conclu- 
sion, that, whatever he may tliink of the language, 
he does not deny that the writer of the Apocalypse 
actually saw what he describes, and was endowed 
with the divine gifts of knowledge and prophecy. 
To this extent, and no farther, Dionysius is a wit- 
ness against St. John's authoi-ship. It is obvious 
that he felt keenly the dilfic!ulty arising from the 
use made of the contents of this book by certain 
unsound Christians under his jurisdiction ; that he 
Wiis acquaint<-d with* the doubt as to its canonical 
authority which some of his predecessors euter- 
tiiined as an inference from the nature of its con- 
tents; that he deliberately rejected their doubt and 
accepted the contents of the book as given by the 
inspiration of God ; that, although he did not 
understand how St. Jolui could write in the style 
in which the lievelation is written, he yet knew 
of no authority for attributing it, as he desired to 
attribute it, to some other of the numerous j)ei-sons 
who bore the name of John. A weightier dilllculty 
•irises liom the fact that the Revelation is one of 


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

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

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


absurd popular delusion. Even the able and learned 
Keuss {Theol. Chret. i. 44-3), by way of supporting 
this interpretation, advances his untenable claim to 
the first discoveiy of the name of Nero Caesar in 
the number of the beast, 066. The inconsistency 
of this interpretation with prophetic analogy, witli 
the context of Revelation, and with the fact that 
the booii is of divine origin, is pointed out by 
Hengstenberg at the end of his Commentary on 
ch. xiii., and by Elliott, Hord.a Apoc. iv. 547. 

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

St. John f.xiv.) sees the Lamb with 144,000 
standing on Mount Ziou learning the song of praise 
of the heavenly host. Three angels tly forth call- 
ing men to worship God, proclaiming the fall of 
Babylon, denouncing the vvoishippers of the beast. 
A blessing is pronouncei-l on tlie faithful dead, and 
the judgment of the world is described under the 
image of a harvest reaped by angels. 

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

The chief commentaries belonging to this period 
are that which is ascribed toTichonius, circ. 390 A.D., 
printed in the works of St. Augustine; Primasius, 
of Adrumetum in Africa, a.d. .550, in AIigne"s Pa- 
trologia Latina, Ixviii. p. 1406 ; Andreas of Crete, 
circ. 650 A.D., Arethas of Cappadocia and Oecu- 
menius of Thessaly in the 10th century, whose 
commentaries were published together in Cramer's 
Catena, Oxon., 1840; the Explanatio Apoc. in 
the works of Bede, A.D. 735 ; the Exposiiio of 
Berengaud, printed in the works of Ambrose ; the 
Commentary of Haymo,, a.d. 853, first published 
at Cologne in 1531 ; a short Treatise on the Seals 
by Anselni, bishop of Havilberg, a.d. 1145, printed 
in D'Achery's Spicilogium, i. 161 ; the Expositio 
of Abbot Joachim of Calabria, a.d. 1200, printed 
at Venice in 15'27. 

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

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

h. The Piaeterist expasitors, who are of opinion 
that the Revelation has been almost, or altogether, 
fulfilled in the time which has passed since it was 
written; that it refers principally to the triumph 
of Christianity over Judaism and Paganism, sig- 
nalised in the downfall of Jerusalem and of Rome. 
The most eminent expounders of this view are Al- 
casar, Grotius, Hammond, Bossuet, Calmet, Wet- 
stein, Eichhorn, Hug, Herder, Ewald, Lilcke, De 
Wette, IHisterdieck, Stuart, Lee, and IMaurice. This 
is the favourite interpretation with the critics of 
Germany, one of whom goes so far as to state that 
the writer of the Revelation promised the fulfilment 
of his visions within the space of three years and a 
half from the time in which Ke wrote. 

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



book, excepting perhaps th« first three chapters, 
refers principally, if notexclasively, to events which 
are yet to come. This view, which is asserted to 
be merely a revival of the primitive interpretation, 
has been advocated in recent times by Dr. J. H. 
Todd, Dr. S. R. Maitland, B. Newton, C. Maitland, 
I. Williams, De Burgh, and others. 

Each of these three schemes is open to objection. 
Against the Futurist it is argued, that it is not 
consistent with the repeated declarations of a speedy 
fulfilment at the beginning and end of the book 
itself (see ch. i. 3, xxii. 6, 7,^2, 20). Christians, to 
whom it was originally addressed, would have derived 
no special comfort fi'om it, had its fulfilment been al- 
together deferred for so many centuries. The rigidly 
literal interpretation of Baljylon, the Jewish tribes, 
and other symbols which generally forms a part of 
Futurist schemes, presents peculiar difficulties. 

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

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

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

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

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



Eeseph). One of the places which Sennacherib men- 
tions, in his taunting messjige to Hezekiah, as liaving 
been destroyed by his predecessor (2 K. xix. 12; 
Is. x.\.ivii. 12). 'He couples it with Haran and 
other well-known Jlesopotiimian spots. Tlie name 
is still a common one, Yakut's Lexicon quoting 
nine towns so called. Interpreters, however, are 
at variance between the principal two of these. 
The one is a day's march west of the Euphrates, 
on the road from R<tcca to Iliiins (Gescams, Keil, 
Thenius, Michaelis, SnppL); the other, again, is 
east of the Euphrates, near Bagdad (Hitzig). The 
fonner is mentioned by I'tolemy (v. 1.5) under the 
name of 'Pri(Ta.<pa, and appeai-s, in the present im- 
perfect state of our Mcsopotamian knowledge, to be 
the moi-e feasible of the two. [G.] 

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

EEZ'IN (rV"'= 'Pafflv, '?aacr(Tiiv: Rasin). 
1. A king of Damascus, contemporary with Pekah 
in Israel, and with Jotham and Ahaz in Judaea. The 
policy of Keziu seems to have been to ally himself 
closely with the kingdom of Israel, and, thus strength- 
ened, to ciu-ry on constant war against the kings of 
.ludah. He attacked Jotham during the latter part 
of his reign (2 K. .xv. 37); but his chief war -was 
with Ahaz, whose territories he invaded, in com- 
pany with Pekah, soon after Ahaz had mounted 
the throne I'about B.C. 741). The combined army 
laid siege to Jerusalem, where Ahaz was, but 
"could not prevail against it" (Is. vii. 1; 2 K. 
xvi. 5). Rezin, however, " recovered Elath to 
Syria" (2 I\. xvi. 6); that is, he conquered and 
held possession of the celebrated town of that name 
at the head of the Gulf of Akabah, which com- 
manded one of the most important lines of trade in 
the East. Soon alter this he was attacked by Tig- 
lath-Pileser II., king of Assjria, to whom Ahaz in 
his distiess had made application ; his annies were 
defeated by the Assyrian hosts ; his city besieged 
and taken ; his people carried away captive into 
Susiana (? Kir) ; and he himself slain (2 K. xvi. 9 ; 
compare Tiglath-Pileser's own inscriptions, where 
the defeat of liczin and the destruction of Damascus 
are distinctly mentioned). This treatment was pro- 
bably owing to his being regarded as a rebel ; since 
Damascus been taken and laid under tribute by 
the .Assyrians some time previously (Kawliuson's 
Ilertjdotus, i. 4fi7). [G. 11.] 

2. One of the families of the Nethinim (Ezr. ii. 
48 ; Neh. vii. 50). It furnishes another example 
of the occurrence of non-Israelite names amongst 
tlieni, which is already noticed under Mehuni.m 
[3i;> note; and see Sisera]. In 1 Esd. the name 
appears a.s Dais;»n, in whicii the change from R to I) 
seems to im])ly that 1 Esdras at one time e.^ted in 
Syriac or some other Semitic language. [G.] 

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

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


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

RHE'GIUM {'V^ytov : Rhegium). The men- 
tion of this Italian town (which was situated on the 
Bruttian coast, just at the southern entrance of the 
straits of Messina) occurs quite incidentally (Acts 
xxviii. 13) in the account of St. Paul's voyage from 
Syracuse to Puteoli, after the shipwreck at Malta. 
But, for two reasons, it is worthy of careful atten- 
tion. By a curious coincidence the figures on its 
coins are the very " twin-brothers " which gave 
the name to St. Paul's ship. See (attached to the 
article Castor and Pollux) the coin of Bruttii, 
which doubtless represents the forms that were 
painted or s(-ulptured on the vessel. And, again, 
the notice of the intermediate position of Rhegium, 
the waiting there for a southerly wind to cai'ry the 
ship through the straits, the run to Puteoli with 
such a wind within the twenty four houi's, are all 
points of geographical accuracy which help us to 
realise the narrative. As to the history of the 
place, it was originally a Greek colony: it was 
miserably destroyed by Dionysius of Syracuse : 
from .\ugustus it received advantages which com- 
bined with its geographical position in making it 
importiuit throughout the duration of the Roman 
eni})ire : it was prominently associated, in the middle 
ages, with the A-aried tbrtiuies of the Greek emperors, 
the Saracens, and the liomans: and still the modern 
Rei/<jio is a town of 10,000 inhabitants. Its distance 
across the straits from Messina is only about six 
miles, and it is well seen from the telegraph station 
above that Sicilian town. [J. S. H.] 


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

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

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



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

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

Coin of Uliodos. 

RHO'DOCUS ('P($5o/coj: Rhodocus). A Jew 
who betrayed the plans of his countrymen to 
Antiochus Eupator. His treason was discovered, 
and he was placed in confinement (2 Mace. xiii. 
21.) [B. F. W.] 

RHODUS ('P(55os : Rhodvs), 1 Mace. xv. 23. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

The eai'ly Jewish interpreters have felt the force 
of this. Confused as is the catalogue of the boun- 
dary in the Targum Pseudojonathan of Num. xxxiv., 
it is plain that the author of that version considers 
" the spring " as the spring of Jordan at Banias, 
and Riblah, therefore, as a place neai' it. With 
this agrees Parchi the Jewish traveller in the 13th 
and i4th centuries, who expressly discriminates 

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

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

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

3 X 



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

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

2. Riblah in the land of Hamath (n?^"!, once 
nn'?3"l, «. e. Ribkthah : » Ae/3Ao0a in both 5ISS. : 
Hcbkitha). A place on the great road between Pa- 
lestine and Babylonia, at which the kings of Baby- 
lonia were accustomed to remain while directing 
the operations of their armies in Palestine and 
Phoenicia. Heie Nebuchadnezzar waited while the 
sieges of Jerusalem and of Tyre were being con- 
<hictc<l by his lieutenants; hither were biought to 
him the wretched king of Judaea and his sons, and 
after a time a selection from all ranks and condi- 
tions of the conquered city, who were put to death, 
doubtless by the horrible death of impaling, which 
the Assyrians practised, and the long lines of the 
victims to which are still to be seen on their monu- 
ments (Jer. .xxxix. 5, 6, lii. 9, 10, 26, 27; 2 K. 
xxr. 6, 20, 21). In like manner Pharaoh-Necho, 
after his successful victory over the Babylonians at 
Carchemish, returnal to Kiblah ami summoned Je- 
hoahaz from Jerusalem before him (2 K. xxiii. 33). 

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

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

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

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

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

XXV. 6. ■JtpS(P\a»af; AtjSAaOa. 


xii. 6). Augustine defines an enigma to be any 
" obscura allegoria " (de Trin. xv. 9), and points 
out, as an instiince, the passage about the daughter 
of the horse-leech in Prov. xxx. 15, whioii has 
been elaborately explained by Bellermann in a mo- 
nograph on the subject {Aenigmata Hebraica, Erf. 
1798). Many pa.ssages, although not definitely 
propounded as riddles, may be regarded as such, 
e. g. Prov. xxvi. 10, a verse in the rendering of 
which every version diflei-s fiom all others. The 
liddles which the queen of Sheba came to ask of So- 
lomon (1 K. X. 1, •^A^e Treipdaat avrhv iv alviy- 
uaai ; 2 Chr. ix. 1; were rather " hard questions " 
referring to profound enqiiiries. Solomon is said, 
however, to have been very fond of the riddle 
proper, for Joseph us quotes two profane historians 
(Menander of Ephesus, and Dius) to authenticate a 
story that Solomon proposed numerous riddles to 
Hiram, for the non-solution of which Hiiam was 
obliged to pay a large tine, until he summoned to 
his assistance a Tyrian named Abdemon, who not 
only solved the riddles, but propounded others 
which Solomon was himself unable to answer, and 
consequently in his turn incurred the penalty. The 
word aiviyfia occurs only once in the N. T. (1 Cor. 
xiii. 12, "darkly," iv alvly/xart, comp. Num. xii. 
8; Wetstein, N. T. ii. 158); but, in the wider 
meaning of the word, many instances of it occur in 
our Lord's discourses. Thus Erasmus applies the 
term to Matt. xii. 43-45. The object of such im- 
plicated meanings is obvious, and is well explained 
by St. Augustine : " maiiiiestis pascimur, obscuris 
cxercemur" {de Doct. Christ, ii. 6). 

We know that all ancient nations, and especially 
Orientals, have been fond of riddles (Rosenmiiller, 
Moryenl. iii. 68). We find tiaces of the custom 
among the Arabs (Koran, xxv. 35), and indeed 
several Aiabic books of riddles exist — as Ketab al 
Algaz in 1469, and a book of riddles solved, called 
Akd al themin. But these are rather emblems and 
de\-ices than what we call riddles, although they 
are very ingenious. The Persians call them Algdz 
and Maamma (D'Herbelot, s. v. Algaz). They 
were also known to the Ancient Egvptians (Ja- 
blonski. Pantheon Aegypt. 48). They were espe- 
cially used in banquets both by Greeks and Romans 
(Miiller, Dor. ii. 392; Athen. x. 457 ; Pollux, vi. 
] 07 ; A. Gell. .xviii. 2 ; Diet, of Ant. p. 22), and 
the kind of witticisms adopted may be seen in the 
literary dinners described by Plato, Xenophon, 
Athenaeus, Plutarch, and Macrobius. Some have 
gi'oundlessly supposed that the proverbs of Solo- 
mon, Lemuel, and Agur, were propounded at feasts, 
like the parables spoken by our Lord on similm- 
occasions (Luke xiv. 7, &c.). 

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

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

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


i*: continuous tlirontjhout the passage (as in Ez. 
xvii. 2, and in such poems as the Syrinx attributed 
to Theocritus); and the lesser enigma or inraiviyixa, 
where tlie difBoulty is concentrated in tl\e peculiai' use 
of some one woid. It mavbe useful to refer to one 
or two instances of the latter, since they are very 
frequently to be found in the Bible, and especially 
in the Propliets. Such is the play on the word 
D3K' ("a portion," and "Shechem," the town of 
Ephraim) in Cen. ,\h-iii. 22 ; on IIVO {mdtxor, 
" a fortillod city," and DpVD, Mizmim, Egypt) 
iu llic. vii. 12 ; on TpEJ' {^Shahed, " an almond- 
tree"), and Ipy {sh'dkad, " to hasten''), in Jer. i. 
11 ; on HD-n {Diunah, meaning " Edom " and 
"the land of death"'), in Is. xxi. 11 ; on ";]t"K'>* 
Sheshach (meaning " Babylon," and pei haps "ar- 
rogance "), in Jer. xxv. 26, li. 41. 

It only remains to notice the single instance 
of a riddle occurring in the N. T., viz., the number 
of the beast. This belongs to a class of riddles 
very common among Egyptian mystics, the Gnostics, 
some of the Fathers, and the Jewish Cabbalists. The 
latter called it Gematria (i. e. yeufj-irpla] of which 
instances may be found in Caipzov {App. Crit. p. 
542), Reland [A)it. Hehr. i. 25), and some of the 
commentators on Rev. xiii. 16-18. Thus CJTIJ 
(ndchdsh), " serpent," is made by the Jews one of 
the names of the Messiah, because its numerical 
value is equivalent to ^''t^'JD ; and the names 

Shushan and Esthei' are connected together because 
the numerical value of the letters composing them 
is 661. Thus the Marcosians regarded the number 
24 as sacred from its being the sum of numei'ical 
values in the names of two quaternions of their 
Aeons, and the Gnostics used the name Abraxas 
as an amulet, because its letters amount nume- 
rically to 365. Such idle fancies ai-e not unfre- 
([uent, in some of the Fathers. We have already 
mentioned (see Cross) the mystic e,\-planation by 
Clem. Alexandrinus of the number 318 in Gen. 
xiv. 14, and by TertuUian of the number 300 (re- 
piesented by the letter T or a cross) in Judg. vii. 
6, and similar instances are supplied by the Testi- 
monia of the Pseudo-Cyprian. The most exact 
analogies, however, to the enigma on the name ot 
the bciist, are to be found in the so-called Sibylline 
verses. We quote one which is exactly similar to 
it, the answer being found iu the name 'Irjaovs 
= 888, thus: 1= 10 H- tj =8 -f cr = 200 -1- o = 70 
+ V =400+s = 200 = 888. It is as follows, 
and is extremely curious : 

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

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



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

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

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

RIM'MON (f\^-\ : 'Penfidv : Bemmon). A 
deity, worshipped by the Syrians of Damascus, 
where there was a temple or house of Rimmon 
(2 K. V. 18). Traces of the name of this god 
appear also iu the proper names Hadad-rimmon 
and Tabrimmon, but its signification is doubtful. 
Serarius, quoted by Selden (De dis Syris, ii. 10), 
refers it to the Heb. rimmon, a pomegranate, a 
fruit sacred to Venus, who is thtis the deity wor- 
shipped under this title (comjtare Pomoni, from 
pomum). Ursinus {Arboretum Bihl. cap. 32, 7j 
explains Rimmon as the pomegranate, the emblem 
of the fertilizing principle of nature, the personified 
nattira naturans, a symbol of frequent occuiTence 
in the old religions (Bahr, Symbolik, ii. 122). If 
this be the true origin of the name, it present* us 
with a relic of the ancient tree-worship of the East, 
which we know to liave prevailed in Palestine. 
But Selden rejects this derivation, and proposes 
instead that Rimmon is from tlie root □•IT, rum, 
" to be high," and signifies " most high ;" like 
the Phoenician Elioun, and Heb. jiyj?. Hesj'- 

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

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

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

EDI'MON (iyi?3"1, i. e. Rimmono : rj 'Feft/xt&v : 
Eemmono). A city of Zebulun belonging to the 
Merarite Levites (1 Chr. vi. 77). There is great 
discrepancv between the list in which it occurs and 
the parallel catalogue of Josh. sxi. The former 
contains two names in place of the four of the latter, 
and neither of them the same. But it is not im- 
possible that DiMNAH (Josh. xxi. 35) may have 
been originally Rimmon, as the D and R in Hebrew 
are notoriously easy to confound. At any rate there 
is no reason for supposing that Rimmono is not 
identical with Rimmon of Zebuhiu (Josh. xix. 13), 
in the A. V. Remmon-methoar. The redundant 
letter was probably transferred, in copying, from the 
succeeding word — at an earlv date, since all the MSS. 

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




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

RIM'MONfjim: 'Zpw/xcie; Alex. 'Pemmcoz ; 
'Pffifiiwp ; ricmmon). A town in the southeili por- 
tion of Judah (Josh. xv. o2), allotted to Simeon 
(Josh. .\ix. 7 ; 1 Chr. iv. o2 : in the former of 
these two passages it is inaccurately given in the 
A. V. as RKMiMON). In each of the above lists the 
name succeeds that of AiN, also one of the cities of 
Judah and Simeon. In the catalogue of the places 
reoccupied by the Jews after the retui-n from 
Babylon (Neh. xi. 29) the two are joined (ps"1 ^J/ : 

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

The hill is steep and naked, the white limestone 
everywhere protruding, and the houses clinging to 
its sides and forming as it were huge steps. Oii 
the south side it lises to a height of several hundred 
feet from the great rav-ine of the Wady Muti/dh ; 
while on the west side it is almost equally isolated 
by a cioss valley of great depth (Poi ter, Handhh. 
217; Mr. Finn, in Van de Velde, Memoir, 345). 
In position it is (as the crow flies) 3 miles east of 
Bethel, and 7 N.E. of Gibe;ih {Tuleil el-Fulj. 
Thus in eveiy particular of name, character, and 
situation it agrees with the requiiements of the Rock 
Rimmon. It was known in the days of Eusebius 
and Jerome, who mention it (^Onomasticon, " Rem- 
mon "; — though confounding it with Rimmon in 
Simeon— as 15 Roman miles northwards from 
Jerusalem. [G.J 

RING (ny2t3 : SoktuXws: annulus). The 
ring was regarded as an indispensable article of a 
Hebrew's attire, inasmuch as it contained his signet, 
and even owed its name to this circumstance, the 
term tabhaath heing derived from a root signifying 
" to impress a seal." It was hence the symbol of 
authority, and as such was presented by Phaiaoh 
to Joseph (Gen. xli. 42), by Ahasuerus to Haman 
(Esth. iii. 10), by Antiochus to Philip (1 Mace. vi. 
15), and by the father to the prodigal son in the 
parable (Luke xv. 22). It was treasured accordingly, 
and became a proverbial expression for a most valued 
object (Jer. xxii. 24; Hagg. ii. 2.') ; Ecclus. xlix. 11). 
Such rings were worn not only by men, but by 
women (Is. iii. 21 ; Mishn. Sahb. 0, §3), and aie 
enumerated among the articles presented by men 
and women for the service of the tabernacle (Ex. 
XXXV. 22). The signet-ring was worn on the right 
hand (Jer. I. c). We may conclude, fi'om Ex. 
xxviii. 1 1, that the rings contained a stone engraven 
with a device, or with the owner's nam.e. Numerous 
specimens of p]gyptian rings have been discovered, 
most of them made of gold, very massive, and con- 
taining either a scarabaeus or an engraved stone 
(Wilkinson, ii. 337). The number of rings worn 

EtTptinn Ri 

by the Egyptians was truly remarkable. The same 
profusion was exhibited also by the Greeks and Ro- 
mans, particularly by men {Diet, of Ant. " Rings "j. 
It appears also to have prevailed among the Jews 
of the Apostolic age; for in Jam. ii. 2, a rich man 
is described as xpff oSoktuAios, meaning not simply 
" with a gold ring," as in the A. V., but " golden- 
ringed " (like the xpfO'o'xf'P) "golden-handed" of 
Lucian, Timon, 20), implying equally well the pre- 
sence of several gold rings. For the term f/dlil, 
rendered " ring" in Cant. v. 14, see Ornaments. 

[W. L. B.] 

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

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

and fragmentary genealogy of the descendants of 

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


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

RITHATH (nQn: 'Pi<p<id; Alex. 'Vupae in 
Chr. : liiphath), the second son of Gomer, and the 
biother of Ashkenaz and Togarmah (Gen. x. 3). 
The Hebrew te.xt in 1 Chr. i. 6 gives the form 
Diphath," but this arises out of a clerical error 
similar to that which gives the forms Rodanim and 
Hadad for Dodanim and Hadar (1 Chr. i. 7, 5u ; 
Gen. .\.\xvi. 39). The name Riphath occurs only 
in the genealogical table, and hence there is little 
to guide us to the lociility which it indicates. The 
name itself has been variously identified with that 
of the Rhipaean mountains (Knobel), the river 
Rhebas in Bithynia (Bochart), the Rhibii, a people 
living eastward of the Caspian Sea (Schulthess;, 
and the Ripheans, the ancient name of the Paphla- 
gonians (Joseph. Ajit. i. 6, §1). This last view 
is ceitainly favoured by the contiguity of Ash- 
kenaz and Togarmah. The weight of opinion is, 
however, in favour of the Rhipaean mountains, 
which Knobel ( Volkert. p. 44) identities etymo- 
logically and geographically with the Carpathian 
range in the N.E. of Dacia. The attempt of that 
writer to identify Riphath with the Celts or Gauls, 
is evidently based on the assumption that so im- 
portant a race ought to be mentioned in tlie table, 
and that there is no other name to apply to them ; 
but we have no evidence that the Gauls were for 
any lengthened period settled in the neighbourhood 
of the Carpathian range. The Rhipaean mountains 
themselves existed more in the imagination of the 
Greeks than in reality, and if the leceived etymo- 
logy of that name (from piirai, " blasts ") be correct, 
the coincidence in sound with Riphath is merely 
accident;il, and no connexion can be held to exist 
between the names. The later geographers, Pto- 
lemy (iii. 5, §15, 19) and others, placed the Rhi- 
paean range where no range really exists, viz., about 
the elevated ground that separates the basins of the 
Euxine and Baltic seas. [W. L. B.] 

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

KITH'MAH (noni : 'Pada/xa: Eethrna). The 
name of a march-station in the wilderness (Num. 
xxxiii. 18, 19j. It stands there next to flazeroth 
[Hazeroth], and probably lay in a N.E. direction 
from that spot, but no place now known has been 
identified with it. The name is probably connected 

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

KrVER. In the sense in which we employ the 



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

word, viz. for a perennial stream of considerable 
size, a river is a much rarer object in the East 
than in the West. The majority of the inhabitants 
of Palestine at the present day have probably never 
seen one. With the exception of the Jordan and 
the Litant/, the streams of the Holy Land are either 
entirely dried up in the summer months, and con- 
veited into hot lanes of glaring stones, or else re- 
duced to very small streamlets deeply sunk in a 
narrow bed, and concealed from view by a dense 
growth of shrubs. 

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

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

1 . For the perennial river, Nahar ("IHJ) . Possibly 

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

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

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

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



I'oituiiately our language does not contain any single 
word which has both the meanings of the Hebrew 
nachal and its Arabic equivalent wady, which can 
be used at once for a dry valley and for the stream 
which occasionally flows through it. Ainsworth, 
in his Annotations (on Num. xiii. 23), says that 
" bourne " has both meanings ; but " bourne" is now 
obsolete in English, though still in use in Scotland, 
where, owiug to the mountainous nature of the 
country^ the " bums " partake of the nature of the 
vxijys of Palestine in the irregularity of their flow. 
Jlr. Burton {Geo{f. Jouni. .\xiv. 2o9) adopts the 
lUilian fiutnara. Othei-s have proposed the Indian 
te;-m nullah. — The double application of the Hebrew 
nachal is evident in 1 K. .xvii. 3, where Elijah is 
commanded to hide himself in (not by) the nachal 
Cherith and to drink of the nachal. 

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

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

2, 3, 6. 

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

connected with the idea of the division of the land 
for irrigation, is translated " river " in Ps. i. 3, 
Ixv. 9; Is. XXX. 25; Job xx. 17. Elsewhere it is 
rendered "stream " (Ps. xlvi. 4), and in Judg. v. 
15, 16, " divisions," whei-e the allusion is probably 
to the artificial streams with which the pastoral 
and agricultural country of Reuben was in-igated 
(Ewald, Didder, i. 129; Gesen. Thes. 1103 6). 

6. Aphik (p''QK). This appears to be used with- 
out any clearly distinctive meaning. It is probably 
from a root signifying strength or force, and may 
signify any rush or body of water. It is translated 
" river" in a few passages: — Cant. v. 12; Ez. vi. 

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

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

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

Aetjypti (Gen. xv. 18), " the river of Egypt," 
that is, the Nile, and here — as the western border 
of the Promised Land, of which the eastern border 
was Euphrates— the Pelusiac or easternmost brwich. 

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

If, with the generality of critics, we think that 
the Nachal-Mizraim is the Wddi-l-'Areesh, we must 
conclude that the name Shihor is also applied to the 
latter, although elsewhere designating the Nile,'' for 
we have seen that Nachal-Mizraim and Shihor are 
used interchangeabl}' to designate a stream on the 
border of the Promised Land. This difficulty seems to 
overthrow the common opinion. It must, however, 
be remembered that in Joshua xiii. 3, Shihor has the 
article, as though actually or originally an appella- 
tive, the former seeming to be the more obvious 
inference from the context. [SillHOR OF Egyi'T ; 

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

parallel Arabic word wadee, t^.^!*, though ordi- 
narily used for valleys and their winter-toiTents, 
as in the case of the Wddi-l-'Areesh itself, has been 
employed by the Arabs in Spain for true rivers, th(! 
Guadalquivir, &c. It may, however, be suggested, 
that in Nachal-Mizraim we have the ancient form 
of the Neel-Misr of the Arabs, and that Nachal was 
adopted from its similarity of sound to the original 
of NeiAos. It may, indeed, be objected that NeiAos 
is held to be of Iranian origin. The answer to this 
is, that we find Javan, we will not say the lonians, 
called by the very name, HANEN, used in the 
Rosetta Stone for " Greek " (SHAEE EN HANEN, 
TOI2 TE EAAHNIK012 rPAMMA2IN), in the 
lists of countries and nations, or tribes, conquered 
by, or subject to, the Pharaohs, as early as the 
reign of Amenoph III., E.c. cir. 1400."= An Iranian 
and even a Greek connexion with Egypt as early as 
the time of the Exodus, is theretbre not to be 
treated as an impossibility. It is, however, re- 
markable, that the word NeiAos does not occur in 
the Homeric poems, as though it were not of 
Sanskrit origin, but derived from the Egyptians or 

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

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

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

c We agree with Lepsius in this identification (Ueber 
dev Namen der lonier auf den Aeg. Uaikmalern, Kijnigl. 
Akad. Berlin). His views have, however, been com- 
bated by Bunsen (Egyjits I'lace, iii. 603-606), Brugsch 
{Geoyr. [nschr. ii. p. 19, pi. siii. no. 2), and De Kouge 
(Tumbeau d'Ahmes, p. 43). 



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

RIZ'PAH CnaVI: 'ViT'pa and 'Peffcpa: Jo- 
seph. 'Pat(r(pa: Ecspha), concubine to king Saul, 
and mother of his two sons Armoni and Mephi- 
bosheth. Like many others of the prominent female 
cliaracters of the Old Testament — Kuth, Rahab, 
Jezebel, &c. — Kizpah would seem to have been a 
foreigner, a Hivite, descended from one of the 
ancient worthies of that nation, Ajah or Aiah,» son 
of Zibeon, whose name and fame are preserved in 
the Ishmaelite record of Gen. xxxvi. If this be the 
case, Saul was commencing a practice, which seems I 
with subsequent kings to have grown almost into a ; 
rule, of choosing non-Israelite women for their in- 
ferior wives. David's intrigue with Bathsheba, or 
Bath-shua, the wife of a Hittite, and possibly i 
herself a Canaanitess,'' is perhaps not a case in [ 
point ; but Solomon, Rehoboam, and their sue- i 
cessors, seem to have had their harems filled with | 
foreign women. j 

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

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

" The Syriac-Peshito and Arabic Versions, in 2 Sam. 
iii., read Ana for Aiab— the name of another ancient 
llivite, the lirotherof AJah, and equally the son of Zibeon. 
liut it is not fair to lay much stress on this, as it may be 
only the error — easily made— of a careless transcriber ; or 
of one so familiar with the ancient names as to liave con- 
founded one with the other. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(•i). ROBBKR : — 

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


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

ROAD. This word occurs but once in the 
Authorised Version of the Bible, viz. iu 1 Sam. 
xxvii. 10, where it is used in the sense of "raid" 
or " inroad," the Hebrew word (D2i*B) being else- 
where (e. g. ver. 8, xxiii. 27, xxx. 1, 14, &c.) ren- 
dered " invade" and " invasion." 

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. TT3 ; Siaprrafw ; depopulor. 

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

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

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

5. nDK* ; iSiapTrafco; dlripio. 

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


teir.atically orgjinized, lobbery has ever been one of 
the principal employments of the nomad tiil)es of 
the I'^ast. From the time of Islunael to the pi-esont 
day, the Bedouin has been a " wild man," and a 
robber by trade, and to carry out his objects suc- 
cessfully, so far from being esteemed disgraceful, is 
rei;;arded as in the highest degree creditable (Geu. 
>vi. 12; Burckhardt, Notes on Bed. i. 137, 157). 
An instance of an enterprize of a truly Bedouin 
character, but distinguished by the exceptional fea- 
tures belonging to its principal actor, is seen in the 
nijcht-foray of David (1 Sam. -x.wi. 6-12), with 
wiiich also we may fairly compare Horn. //. K. 
204, &c. Predatory inroads on a large scale are 
seen in the incursions of the Sabaeaus and Chal- 
daeans on the property of Job (Job i. 15, 17); the 
reveuije coupled with plunder of Simeon and Levi 
((jen. xxxiv. 28, 29) ; the repiisals of the Hebrews 
upon the Midiaiiites (Num. xxxi. 32-54), and the 
frequent and often prolonged invasions of " spoilers" 
upon the Israelites, together with their reprisals, 
during the period of the Judges and Kings (Judg. 
ii. 14, vi. 3, 4; 1 Sam. xi., xv. ; 2 Sam. viii., x. ; 
2 K. V. 2; 1 Chr. v. 10, 18-22). Individual in- 
stances, indicating an unsettled state of the countiy 
during the s;ime period, are seen in the " liers-in- 
wait" of the men of Shechem (Judg. ix. 25 J, and 
the mountain retreats of David in the cave of Adul- 
1am, the hill of Hachilah, and the wilderness of 
Maon, and his abode in Ziklag, invaded and plun- 
dered in like manner by the Amalekites (1 Sam. 
ixii. 1, 2, xxiii. 19-25, xxvi. 1, xxvii. 6-10, xxx. 1). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

ROBOAM {'Po^od/j.: Bohoam), Ecclus. xlvii. 
23 ; Matt. i. 7. [Reiioboam.] 

ROE, ROEBUCK (^ny, tze'u (m.) ; n»3V, 

tzebiyi/d/i (f.) : SopKas, SSpKcov, SopKdStoi> : caprea, 
damula). There seems to t>e little or no doubt 
that the Heb. word, which occurs frequently in the 
0. T., denotes some species of antelope, probably 
the Gazella dorcas, a native of Egypt and North 
Africa, or the G. Arabica of Syria and Arabia, 
which appears to be a variety only of the dorcas. 
The gazelle was allowed as food (Deut. xii. 15, 
22, &c.) ; it is mentioned as very fleet of foot 
(2 Sam. ii. 18; 1 Chr. xii. 8); it was hunted (Is. 
xiii. 14 ; Prov. vi. 5) ; it was celebrated for its 
loveliness (Cant. ii. 9, 17, viii. 14). The gazelle 
is found in Egypt, Barbary, and Syria. Stanley 
{S. ^ P. p. 207) says that the signification of the 
word Ajalon, the valley " of stags," is still justified 
by " the gazelles which the peasants hunt on its 
mountain slopes." Thomson (T/(e Land and the 
Book, p. 172) says that the mountains of Naphtali 
" abound in gazelles to this day." 



GazfUa Aralfica. 

The ai-iel gazelle {G. Arabica), which, if not a 
different species, is at least a well marked variety 
of the dorcas, is common in Syria, and is hunted 
by the Arabs with a flilcon and a greyhound ; the 
repeiited attacks of the bird upon the head of the 
animal so bewilder it that it tails an easy prey to 
the gi-eyhound, which is trained to watch the flight 
of the falcon. Many of these antelopes are also 
taken in pitfals into which they are driven by the 
shouts of the hunters. The large full soft eye of 
the gazelle has long been the theme of Oriental 
praises. L^^- ^-J 

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

1050 ROHGAH 

though once 'PcayeXein : RogcUm). The resiJcHce 
of Barzillai the Gileadit« (2 Sam. xvii. 27, xix. 31) 
in the highhmds east of tlie Jordan. It is men- 
tioned on this occasion only. Nothing is said to 
guide us to its situation, and no name at all 
resembling it appears to have been hitherto dis- 
covered on tlie spot. 

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

ROH'GAH (nann, CctMb, nann, Kcri: 

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

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

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

times consisted of a single long strip of paper or 
jiarchment, which was usually kept rolled up on a 
stick, and was unrolled when a person wished to 
i-e;id it. Hence arose the term megillah, from 
ijalal,* " to roll," stiictly answering to the Latin 
volumcn, whence comes our volume ; hence also the 
expressions, " to spread" and " roll together," '' in- 
stead of " to open" and " to shut" a book. The 
full expression for a book was " a roll of writing," 
or "a roll of a book" (Jer. xxxvi. 2; Ps. xl. 7 ; 
Ez. ii. 9), but occasionally " roll" stands by itself 
(Zech. V. 1,2; Ezr. vi. 2). The Ke(f>aXis of the 
LXX. originally referred to the ornamental knob 
(the umbilicus of the Latins) at the top of the stick 
or cylinder round which the roll was wound. The 
use of the term megillah implies, of couise, the ex- 
istence of a soft and pliant material: what this ma- 
terial was in the Old Testament period, we are not 
infoitned ; but as a knife was required for 'its de- 
struction (Jer. xxxvi. 23), we infer that it was 
parchment. The roll was usually written on one 
side only (Mishn. Ei-ub. 10, §3), and hence the 
particular notice of one that was "written within 
and without" (Ez. ii. 10). The writing was ar- 
)anged in columns, resembling a door in shape, 
and hence deriving their Hebrew name,' just as 
"column," from its resemblance to a cohiinna or 
pillar. It has been asserted that the term megillah 
does not occur before the 7th cent. B.C., being first 
used by Jeremiah (Hitzig, in Jer. xxxvi. 2) ; and 
the conclusion has been drawn tliat the use of such 
materials as parchment was not known until that 
])eriod (Ewald, Gesch. i. 71, note; Geseu. Tlies. 
p. 289). Tliis is to assume, perhaps too confi- 
dently, a late date for the composition of Ps. xl., 
and to ignore the collateral evidence arising out of 
the expression " roll together " uted by Is. xxxiv. 
4, and also out of the probable reference to the 
Pentateuch in Ps. xl. 7, " the roll of the book," a 
copy of which was deposited by the side of the ark 
(Detit. xxxi. 2G). We may here add that the term 
in Is. viii. 1, rendered in the A. V. " roll," more 
correctly means tablet. [W. L. B.] 


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

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

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

The first historic mention of Rome in the Bible 
is in 1 Maoc. i. 10. Though the date of tlie founda- 
tion of Rome coincides nearly with the beginning 
of the reign of Pekah in Israel, it was not till the 
beginning of the 2nd century B.C. that the Romans 
had leisure to interfere in the affairs of the East. 
When, however, the power of Caithage had been 
eflectually broken at Zama, B.C. 202, Itoman arms 
and intrigues soon made themselves felt throughout 
JIacedonia, Gi-eece, and Asia Minor. About the 
year 161 B.C. Judas Jlaccabaeus heard of the Ro- 
mans as the conquerors of Philip, Perseus, and 
Antiochus (1 Mace. viii. .5, 6). " It was told him 
also how they destroyed and brought under their 
dominion all other kingdoms and isles that at any 
time resisted them, but with their friends and such 
as relied upon them they kept amity " (viii. 11, 12). 
In order to strengthen himself against Demetrius 
king of Syria he sent ambassadors to Rome (viii. 
17), and concluded a defensive alliance with the 
senate (viii. 22-32). This was renewed by Jona- 
than (xii. 1) and by Simon (xv. 17 ; Joseph. Ant. 
xii. 10, §6, xiii. 5, §8, 7, §3). Notices of the em- 
bassy sent by Judas, of a tribute paid to Rome by 
the Syrian king, and of further intercourse between 
the Romans and the Jews, occur in 2 ]\Iacc. iv. 11, 
viii. 10, 36, xi. 34. In the course of the narrative 
mention is made of the Roman senate (jh ^ovXev- 
TTipiou, 1 Mace. xii. 3), of the consul Lucius 
(o viraros, 1 Mace. xv. 15, 16), and the Roman con- 
stitution is described in a somewhat distorted form 
(1 Mace. viii. 14-16). 

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

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



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


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


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

Such were the relations of the Jewish people to 
the Roman government at the time when the N. T. 
history begins. An ingenious illustration of this 
slate of things has been drawn from the condition 
of British India. The Governor General at Calcutta, 
the subordinate governors at Madras and Bombay, 
and the native princes, whose dominions have been 
at one time enlarged, at another incorporated with 
the British presidencies, find their respective coun- 
terparts in the governor of Syria at Antioch, the 
procurators of Judaea at Caesarea, and the mem- 
bers of Herod's family, whose dominions were alter- 
nately enlarged and suppressed by the Roman em- 
perors (Conybeare and Howson, Life of St. Paul, 
i. 27). These and other characteristics of Roman 
rule come before us constantly in the N. T. Thus 
we hear of Caesar the sole king (John xix. 15) — 
of Cyrenius, " governor of Syria " (Luke ii. 2) — of 
Pontius Pilate, Felix, and Festus, the " governors," 
i. e. procurators, of Judaea — of the " tetrarchs " 
Herod, Phihp, and Lysanias (Luke iii. 1) — of " king 
Agrippa" (Acts xxv. 13) — of Roman soldiers, 
legions, centurions, publicans — of the tribute-money 
(Matt. xxii. 19) — the taxing of " the whole world " 
(Luke ii. 1) — Italian and Augustan cohorts (Acts 
X. 1, xxvii. 1) — the appeal to Caesar (Acts xxv. 11). 
Three of the Roman emperors are mentioned in the 
N. T. — Augustus (Luke ii. 1), Tiberius (Luke iii. 
1), and Claudius (Acts xi. 28, xviii. 2). Nero is 
alluded to under various titles, as Augustus (2e- 
fiaa-Tds) and Caesar (Acts xxv. 10, 11, 21, 25; 
Phil. iv. 22), as 6 Kvpw^, " my lord " (Acts xxv. 
26), and apparently in other passages (1 Pet. ii. 17 ; 
Rom. xiii. 1). Several notices of the provincial 
administration of the Romans and the condition of 
provincial cities occur in the narrative of St. Paul's 
journevs (Acts xiii. 7, xv'ii. 12, xvi. 12, 35, 38, 
xix. 38). 

In illustration of the sacred narrative it may be 
well to give a general account, though necessarily 
a short and imperfect one, of the position of tlie 
empei'or, the extent of the empire, and the ud- 



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

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

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

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



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

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

This large population was controlled in the time 
of Tiberius by an army of 25 legions, exclusive of 
the praetorian guards and other cohoiis in the 
capital. The soldiers who composed the legions may 
be reckoned in round numbers at 170,000 men. If 
we add to these an equal number of auxiliaries (Tac. 
Ann. IV. 5) we have a total force of S40,000 men. 
The praetorian guaids may be reckoned at 10,000 
( Dion Cass. Iv. 24). The other cohorts would swell 
the garrison at Rome to fifteen or sixteen thousand 
men. For the number and stations of the legions 
in the time of Tiberius, comp. Tac. Ann. iv. 5. 

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

III. The Provinces. — The usual fate of a country 
conquered by Rome was to become a subject pro- 
vince, governed directly from Rome by officers sent 
out for that pui-pose. Sometimes, however, as we 
have seen, petty sovereigns weie left in possession 
of a nominal independence on the borders, or within 
the natural limits, of the province. Such a system 
was useful for rewarding an ally, for employing a 
busy ruler, for gradually accustoming a stubborn 
people to the yoke of dependence. There were 
dlflerences too in the political condition of cities 
within the provinces. Some were free cities, i. e. 
were governed by their own magistrates, and were 
exempted from occupation by a Roman garrison. 
Such were Tarsus, Antioch in Syria, Athens, Ephe- 
sus, Thessalonica. See the notices of the " Poli- 
tiirchs" and "Demos" at Thessalonica, Acts xvii. 
5-8. The " town-clerk " and the assembly at 
Ephcsus, Acts six. 35, .".9 (C. and II. Life of St. 
Paul, i. 357, ii. 79). Occasionally, but rarely, free 
cities were exempted from taxation. Other cities 
were "Colonies," i. e. communities of Roman citi- 
zens transplanted, like garrisons of the imperial 
city, into a foreign land. Such was Philippi (Acts 
xvi. 12). Such too were Cminth, Troas, the Pisi- 
dian Antioch. The inhabit^ints were for the most 
part Romans (Acts xvi. 21), and their magistrates 
delighted in the Roman title of Praetor {arpa- 
rriy6s), and in the attendance of lictors (l>a05ovxoi), 
Acts xvi. 35. (C. and H. i. 315.) 

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


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

The provinces were heavily taxed for the benefit 
of Rome and her citizens. " It was as if England 
were to defray the expenses of her own administra- 
tion by the proceeds of a tax levied on her Indian 
empire " (Liddell, Hist, of Rome, i. p. 448). In old 
times the Roman revenues were raised mainly fi'om 
three sources : (1.) The domain lands; (2.) A direct 
tax (tributum) levied upon every citizen ; (3.) From 
customs, tolls, harbour duties, &c. The agrarian 
law of Julius Caesar is said to have extinguished 
the first source of revenue (Cic. ad Att. ii. xvi.; 
Dureau de la Malle, ii. 430). Roman citizens had 
ceased to pay direct taxes since the conquest of 
Macedonia, B.C. 167 (Cic. de Off. ii. 22; Flut. 
Aeniil. Paid. 38), except in extraordinary emer- 
gencies. The main pait of the Roman revenue was 
now drawn from the provinces by a direct tax 
{ktivctos, <p6pos. Matt. xxii. 17 , Luke xx. 22), 
amounting probably to from 5 to 7 per cent, on 
the estimated produce of the soil (Dureau de la Malle, 
ii. p. 418). The inchrect taxes too (teAtj, vecti- 
galia, Matt. xvii. 25 ; Dureau de la Malle, ii. 449) 
appear to have been very heavy (ibid. ii. 452, 
448). Augustus on coming to the empire found 
the regular sources of revenue impaired, while his 
expenses must have been very great. To say no- 
thing of the pay of the army, he is said to have 
supported no less than 200,000 citizens in idleness 
by the miserable system of public gratuities. Hence 
the uecessit}' of a careful valuation of the property 
of the wliole empire, which appears to have been 
made more than once in his reign. [Cexsus.] For 
the historical difficulty about the taxing in Luke 
ii. 1, see Cvrenius. Augustus appears to have 
raised both the direct and indirect taxes (Dureau 
de la Malle, ii. 433, 448). 

The provinces are said to have been better go- 
verned under the Empire than under the Common- 
wealth, and those of the emperor better than those 
of the Senate (Tac. Ann. i. 76, iv. 6 ; Dion, liii. 
14). Two important changes were introduced under 
the Empire. The governors received a fixed pay, 
and the term of theii' command was prolonged 
(Jos. Ant. xviii. 6, §5). But the old mode of 
levying the taxes seems to have been continued. 
The comi)aiiies who farmed the taxes, consisting 
generally of knights, paid a ceiiain sum into the 
Roman tieasuiy, and proceeded to wring what 
they could from the provincials, often with the 
connivance and support of the provincial governor. 
The work w;is done chiefly by underlings of the 
lowe-st class (portitores). These aie the publicans 
of the N. T. 


On the whole it seems doubtful whether the 
wrongs of the provinces can have been materially 
alleviated under the Imperial government. It is not 
likely that such rulers as Caligula and Nero would 
be scrupulous about the means used for replenishing 
their treasury. The stories related even of the 
reign of Augustus show how slight were the checks 
on the tyranny of provincial governoi-s. See the story 
of Licinus in Gaul {Diet, of Gr. <f- Som. Biog. sub 
voce), and that of the Dalmatian chief (Dion, Iv.). 
The sufferings of St. Paul, protected as he was to a 
certain extent by his Roman citizenship, show plainly 
how little a provincial had to hope from the justice 
of a Roman governor. 

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

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


tions tor the relief of the infirm and poor, no societies 
for the improvement of the condition of mankind 
from motives of charity. Nothing was done to 
promote the instruction of the lower classes, no- 
thing to mitigate the miseries of domestic slavery. 
Charity and general philanthropy were so little 
regarded as duties, that it re<juires a very extensive 
acquaintance with the literature of the times to 
find any allusion to them" (Arnold's Later Eorivm 
Comioonii-ealth, ii. 398). If we add to this that 
there was probably not a single religion, except the 
Jewish, which was felt by the more enlightened 
part of its professors to be real, we may form some 
notion of the world which Christianity had to 
reform and purify. We venture to (juote an elo- 
quent description of its " slow, imperceptible, con- 
tinuous aggression on the heathenism of the Roman 

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

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


1. The date of this Epistle is fixed with more ab- 
solute certainty and within narrower limits, than 
that of any other of St. Paul's Epistles. The fol- 
lowing considerations determine the time of writing. 
First. Certain names in the salutations point to 
Corinth, as the place from which the letter was 
sent. (1.) Phoebe, a deaconess of Cenchreae, one 
of the port towns of Corinth, is commended to the 
Romans (xvi. 1, 2). (2.) Gains, in whose house 
St. Paul was lodged at the time (xvi. 23), is pro- 
bably the person mentioned as one of the chief mem- 
bers of the Corinthian Church in 1 Cor. i. 14, 
though the natne was very common. (3.)' Erastus, 
here designated " the treasurer of the city " (oIko- 
v6fMos, xvi. 23, E. V. " chamberlain") is elsewhere 
mentioned in connexion with Corinth (2 Tim. iv. 
20 ; see also Acts xix. 22). Secondly. Having thus 
detennined the place of writing to be Corinth, we 
have no hesitation in fixing upon the visit lecorded 
in Acts XX. 3, during the winter and spring following 
the Apostle's long residence at Epliesus, as the occa- 
sion on which the Epistle was written. For St. Paul, 
when he wrote the letter, was on the point of carry- 
ing the contributions of Macedonia and Achaia to 
Jerusalem (xv. 25-27), and a comparison with Acts 
XX. £2, xxiv. 17, and also 1 Cor. xvi. 4 ; 2 Cor. viii. 


1, 2, ix. 1 ff., shows that he was so engaged at this 
p<niod of his life. (See Paley's Horae Paulinae, eh. 
ii. §1.) Moreover, in this Epistle he declares his 
intention of visiting the liomans after he has heen at 
Jeiusalem (xv. 23-25), and that such was his de- 
sign at this particular time appeal's from a casual 
notice in Acts xix. 21. 

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

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

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


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

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

The statement in the Clementines {Horn. i. §6) 
that the first tidings of the Gospel i-eached Rome 
during the lifetime of our Lord, is evidently a fiction 
for the pur]ioses of the romance. On the other 
hand, it is clear that the foundation of this Church 
dates very far back. St. Paul in this Epistle salutes 
ceitain believers resident in Rome— Andronicus and 
Junia (or Junianus ?) — adding that they were dis- 
tinguished among the Apostles, and that they were 
converted to Christ before himself (xvi. 7), for such 
seems to be the meaning of the ]):\ssage, rendered 
somewhat ambiguous by the position of the I'elative 
pronouns. It may be that some of those Romans, 
" both Jews and proselytes," present on the day ot 
Pentecost {oi iin.Syifxovi'Tfs 'VoyfJ-oioi, 'lov5a7oi re 
Kal Trpo(TT}\vToi, Acts ii. ]U), carried Ijuck the 
earliest tidings of the new docti-ine, or the Gospel 
may have first reached the imperial city through 
those who were scattered abroad to escape the perse- 
cution which followed on the death of Stephen (Acts 
viii. 4, xi. 19). At all events, a close and constant 
communication was kept up between the Jewish 
residents in Rome and their fellow-countrymen in 
Palestine by the exigencies of commerce, in which they 
became more and more engrossed, as their national 
hojies declined, and by the custom of re))airing regu- 
larly to their sacred festivals at Jerusalem. Again, 
the imperial edicts alternately banishing and recall- 
ing the Jews (compare e. ij. in the case of Claudius, 
Joseph. AHt.\\\. 5, §3, with Suet. Claud. 25) must 
have kept up a constant ebb and flow of migration 
between Rome and the East, and the case of Aquila 
and Priscilla (Acts xviii. 2 ; see Paley, Hor, Paul, c 
ii. §2), probably represents a numeious class through 
whose means the ojiinions and doctrines promulgated 
in Palestine might reach the metropolis. At first 
we may suppose that the Gospel was preached there 
in a confused and imperfect form, scarcely more 
than a phase of Judaism, as in the case of Apollos 
at Corinth (Acts xviii. 25), or the disciples at 
Ephesus (Acts xix. 1-3), As time advanced and 


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

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

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

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


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

Nor does the existence of a large Jewish element 
in the Roman Church present any difficulty. The 
captives carried to Rome by Pompcius formed the 
nucleus of the Jewish population in the metropolis 
[Rome]. Since that time they had largely in- 
creased. During the reign of Augustus we hear of 
above 8000 resident Jews attaching themselves to a 
Jewish embassy which appealed to this emperor (Jo- 
seph. Ant. xvii. 11, §1). The same emperor gave 
them a quai'ter beyond the Tiber, and allowed them 
the free exercise of their religion (Philo, Lej.Aid 
Caium, p. 568 M.). About the time when St. 
Paul wrote, Seneca, speaking of the influence of Ju- 
daism, echoes the famous expression of Horace {Ep. 
ii. 1, 1.56) respecting the Greeks — " victi victoribus 
leges dederunt" (Seneca, in Augustin. de Civ. Dei, 
vi. 11). And the bitter satire of Juvenal and in- 
dignant complaints of Tacitus of the spi'ead of the 
infection through Roman society, are well known. 

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

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


adventurous, and also the most intelligent of the 
middle and lower classes of society. The influence 
which they were acquiring by their numbers and 
versatility is a constant theme of reproach in the 
Roman philosopher and satirist (Juv. iii. 60-80, vi. 
184; Tac. de Oral. 29). They complain that the 
national character is undermined, that the whole 
city has become Greel?. Speaking the language 
of international intercourse, and brought by their 
restless habits into contact with foreign religions, 
the Greeks had larger opportunities than others of 
acquainting themselves with the truths of the Gospel : 
while at the same time holding more loosely to tra- 
ditional beliefs, and with minds naturally more 
enquiring, they would be more ready to welcome 
these truths when they came in their way. At all 
events, for wliatever reason, the Gentile converts at 
Rome were Greeks, not Romans : and it was an un- 
fortunate conjecture on the part of the transcriber 
of the Syriac Peshito, that this letter was written 
"in the Latin tongue," (D^NDTl). Every line in 
the Epistle bespeaks an original. 

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

It seems probable from what has been said above, 
that the Roman Church at this time was composed 
of Jews and Gentiles in nearly equal portions. This 
fact finds expression in the account, whether true 
or false, which represents St. Peter and St. Paul as 
presiding at the same time over the Church at 
Rome (Dionys. Cor. ap. Euseb. H. E. ii. 25 ; Iren. 
iii. 3). Possibly also the discrepancies in the lists 
of the early bishops of Rome may find a solution 
(Pearson, Minor T/ieol. Works, ii. 449; Bunsen, 
Hippohitus, i. p. 44), in the joint Episcopate of 
Lirus and Cletiis, the one ruling over the Jewish, the 
other over the Gentile congregation of the metropolis. ! 
If this conjecture be accepted, it is an im])ortaut testi- I 
mony to the view here maintained, though we can- 
not suppose that in St. Paul's time the two elements 
of the Roman Church had distinct organizations. 

6. The heterogeneous composition of this Church 
explains the general character of the Epistle to the 
Romans. In an assemblage so various, we should 
expect to find not the exclusive predominance of a 
single form of error, but the coincidence of different 
and opposing forms. The Gospel had here to contend 
notspecially with Judaism norspecially with heathen- 
ism, but witli both together. It was therefore the bu- 
siness of the Christian Te;icher to reconcile the opposing 
difficulties and to hold out a meeting point in the 
Gospel. This is exactly what St. Paul does in the 


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

7. This explanation is in fact to be sought in its 
relation to the contemporaneous Epistles. The 
letter to the Romans closes the group of Epistles 
written during the second missionary journey. This 
group contains teides, as already mentioned, the 
letters to the Corinthians and Galatians, written 
probably within the few months preceding. At 
Corinth, the capital of Achaia, and the stronghold of 
heathendom, the Gospel would encounter its severest 
struggle with Gentile vices and prejudices. In Ga- 
latia, which either from natural sympathy or from 
close contact seems to have been more exposed to 
Jewish influence, than any other Church within St. 
Paul's sphere of laliour, it had a sharp contest with 
Judaism. In the Epistles to these two Churches 
we study the attitude of the Gospel towards the 
Gentile and Jewish world respectively. These 
letters are direct and special. They are evoked by 
present emergencies, are directed against actual evils, 
are full of personal applications. The Epistle to 
the Romans is the summary of what he had written 
before, the result of his dealing with the two anta- 
gonistic forms of error, the gathering together of 
the fi-agmentary teaching in the Corinthian and 
Galatian letters. What is there immediate, irre- 
gular, and of partial application, is here arranged 
and completed, and thrown into a general foi-m. 
Thus on the one hand his treatment of the Mosaic 
law points to tlie ditficulties he encountered in 
dealing with the Galatian Church, while on the 
other his cautions against antinomian excesses (Rom. 
vi. 15, &c.), and his precepts against giving offence 
in the matter of meats and the observance of days 
(Rom. xiv.), remind us of the errors which he had 
to correct in his Corinthian converts. (Compare 


1 Cor. vi. 12 rt'., and I Cor. viii. 1 11'.) Those in- 
junctions tiien which seem at first sight special, 
appear not to be directed against any actual known 
failings in the Roman Church, but to be suggested 
bv the possibility of" those irregularities occurring in 
Rome which he had alieaily encountered elsewhere. 
8. Viewing this Epistle then rather in the light 
of a treatise than of a letter, we are enabled to 
explain certain phenomena in the text. In the 
received text a doxology stands at the close of the 
Epistle (xvi. 25-27J. The preponderance of evi- 
dence is in favour of this position, but there is 
respectable authority for placing it at the end of 
ch. xiv. In some texts again it is found in both 
places, while others omit it entirely. How can we 
account for this? It has been thought by some to 
discredit the genuineness of the doxology itself : but 
there is no sufficient ground for this view. The 
arguments against its genuineness on the gi'ound 
of style, advanced by Rei!:he, are met and refuted 
by Fritzsche (Rom. vol. i. p. xxrv.). Baur goes 
still farthei-, and rejects the two last chapters ; but 
such an inference falls without the range of sober 
criticism. The phenomena of the JISS. seem best 
explained by supposing that the letter was circu- 
lated at an early date (whether during the Apostle's 
lifetime or not it is idle to inquire) in two forms, 
both with and without the two last chapters. In 
the shorter foi'm it was divested as far as possible 
of its epistolary character by abstracting the per- 
sonal matter addressed especially to the Romans, 
the doxology being retained at the close. A still 
further attempt to strip this Epistle of any special 
references is found in MS. G, which omits eV 'Piofxp 
(i. 7), and to7s eV 'Pufj.r] (i. 15), for it is to be 
observed at the same time that this MS. omits the 
doxology entirely, and leaves a space after ch. xiv. 
This view is somewhat confinned by the parallel case 
of the opening of the Ephesian Epistle, in which 
there is very high authority for omitting the words 
eV 'E(pea-ij>, and which bears strong marks of having 
been intended for a circular letter. 

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

And the position itself established from 
Scripture (iii. 9-20). 
(6) A righteousness (justification) is revealed 
under the Gospel, which being of faith, not 
of law, is also universal (iii. 21-26). 
And boasting is thereby excluded (iii. 27-31). 
Of tliis justification by faith Abraham is an 

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

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

(c) The moral consequences of our delivei- 

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

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

Yet we must remember — 

(i.) That the promise was not to the whole 
people, but only to a select seed (ix. 6-13). 
And the absolute purpose of God in so 
ordaining is not to be canvassed by man 
(ix. 14-19). 

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

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

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


IV. Personal matters. 

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

(xv. u-as). 

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

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

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

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

The reference to Rom. ii. 4 in 2 Pet. iii. 15 is 
indeed more than doubtful. In the Epistle of 
St. James again (ii. 14), there is an allusion to 
perversions of St. Paul's language and doctiine 
which has several points of contact with the Epistle 
to the Romans, but this may perhaps be explained 
by the oral ratlier than the written teaching of the 
Apostle, as tlie dates seem to require. It is not 
the practice of the Apostolic fathers to cite the 
N. T. writei-s by name, but marked passages from 
the Romans are found embedded in the EpLstles of 
Clement and Polycarp (Rom. i. 29-32 in Clem. 
Cor. c. XXXV., and Rom. xiv. 10, 12, in Polyc. 
Phil. c. vi.). It seems also to have been directly 
cited by the elder quoted in Irenaeus (iv. 27, 2, 
^'ideo Paulum dixisse;" cf. Rom. xi. 21, 17), and 
is alluded to by the writer of the Epistle to Diogne- 
tus (c. IX., cf. Rom. iii. 21 foil., v. 20), and by 
Justin Martyr {Dial. c. 23, cf. Rom. iv. 10, 11, 
and in other passages). The title of Melito's trea- 
tise, 0)1 the Hearing of Faith, seems to be an allu- 
sion to this Epistle (see however Gal. iii. 2, 3). It 
has a place moreover in the Muratorian Canon and in 
the Syriac and Old Latin Versions. Nor have we 
the testimony of orthodox writers alone. The Epistle 
was commonly quoted as an authority by the heretics 
of the subapostolic age. by the Ophites (Hippol. 
adv. Haer. p. 99, cf. liom. i. 20-20), by Basilides 
{ib. p. 238, cf. Rom. viii. 19, 22, and v. 13, 14), 
by Valentinus {ib. p. 19.5, cf. Rom. viii. 11), by 
the Valentinians Heracleon and Ptolemaeus (West- 
cott. On the Canon, pp. 335, 340), and perhaps also 
by Tatian {Orat. c. iv., cf. Rom. i. 20), besides 
being included in Marcion's Canon. In the latter 
part of the second century the evidence in its 
favour is still fuller. It is obviously alluded to in 
the letter of the churches of Vienne and Lyons 
(Euseb. H. E. v. 1, cf. Rom. viii. 18), and by 
Athenagoras (p. 13, cf. Rom. xii. 1 ; p. 37, cf. Rom. 
i. 24) and Thcophilus of Antioch {Ad Antol. p. 79, 
cf. Rom. ii. 6 foil.; p. 12(5, cf. Rom. xiii. 7, 8) ; and 
is quoted frequently and by name by Irenaeus, Ter- 
tullian, and Clement of'Alexandria (sec Kirchhofer, 
Qnellcn, p. 198, and esp. VVestcott, On the Canon, 
pa.ssim j. 


11. The Commentaries on this Epistle are very 
numerous, as might be expected from its import- 
ance. Of the many patristic expositions only a h\v 
are now extant. The work of Oiigen is preserved 
entire only in a loose Latin translation of Rufinus 
{Orig. ed. do la line, iv. 458), but some fragments 
of the original are found in the Philocalia, and moi e 
in Cramer's Catemx. The commentary on St. Paul's 
Epistles printed among the works of St. Ambrose 
(ed. Bon. ii. Appx. p. 21), and hence beaiing the 
name Ambiosiaster, is probably to be attributed to 
Hilary the deacon. Besides these are the exposi- 
tions of St. Paul's Epistles by Chrysostom (ed. 
Montf ix. p. 425, edited separately by Field), by 
Peiagius (printed among Jerome's works, ed. Vai- 
larsi, xi. Pt. 3, p. 135), byPrimasius {Magn. Bibl. 
Vet. Patr. vi. Pt. 2, p. '30), and by Theodoret (ed. 
Schulze, iii. p. 1). Aug-ustine commenced a work, 
but broke off at i. 4 : it bears the name Inchoata 
Expositio Epistolae ad Bom. (ed. Ben. iii. p. 925). 
Later he wrote Expositio q'l/xrundam Projxsitionum, 
Epistolae ad Rom., also e.xtant (ed. Ben. iii. p. 903). 
To these should be added the later Catena of Oecu- 
menius (10th eeut.) and the notes of Theophylact 
(1 1th cent.), the former containing valuable extracts 
from Photius. Portions of a commentary of Cyinl 
of Alexandria were published by Mai {Nov. Putr. 
Bibl. iii. p. 1). The Catena edited by Cramer 
(1844) compi-ises two collections of Variorum notes, 
the one extending from i. 1 to ix. 1, the other from 
vii. 7 to the end. Besides passages from extant 
commentaries, they contain important extracts fiom 
Apollinarius, Theodorus of JMopsuestia, Severianus, 
Gennadius, Photius, and others. There aie also the 
Greek Scholia, edited by Matthai, in his large Greek 
Test. (Riga, 1782), fi-om Moscow MSS. The com- 
mentary of Euthymius Zigabenus (Tholuck, Einl. 
§6) exists in MS., but has never been printed. 

Of later commentaries we can only mention a 
few of the most important. The dogmatic value 
of this Epistle naturally atti'acted the early i-e- 
formers. Melancthon wrote several expositions of it 
(Walch, Bibl. Theol. iv. 679). The Commentary 
of Calvin on the Romans is considered the ablest 
part of his able work. Among Roman Catholic 
writers, the older works of Estius and Corn, a 
Lapide deserve to be mentioned. Of foreign anno- 
tators of a more recent date, besides the ireneral 
commentaries of Bengel, Olshausen, De Wette, and 
Meyer (3rd ed. 1859), which are highly valuable 
aids to the study of this Epistle, we may single out 
the special works of Riickert (2nd ed. 1839), 
Reiche (1834), Fritzsche (183(5-43), and Tholuck 
(5th ed. 1856). An elaborate commentary has also 
been published lately by Van Hengel. Among 
English writers, besides the editions of the whole 
of the New Testament by Alford (4th ed. 1861) 
and Woidsworth (new ed. 1861), the most im- 
portant annotations on the Epistle to the Romans 
are those of Stuart (6th ed. 1857), Jowett (2nd 
ed.^ 1859), and Vaughan (2nd ed. 1801). Further 
information on the subject of the literature of the 
Epistle to the Romans may be found in the intro- 
ductions of Reiche and Tholuck. [J. B. L.] 

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


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

}iome is not mentioned in the Bible except in the 
books of Maccabees and in three books of the N. T., 
viz. tlie Acts, the Epistle to the Komans, and the 
'Jml Epistle to Timothy. For the notices of Rome 
in the books of Macaibees see Roman Empire. 

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

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

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



Forum and Campus Marti us, must now have pre- 
sented a magnificent appearance, but many of the 
principal buildings which attract the attention of 
modern travellers in ancient Rome were not yet 
built. The stieets were generally narrow and 
winding, flanked by densely crowded lodging-houses 
(insulae) of enormous height. Augustus found it 
necessary to limit their height to 70 feet (Strab. 
V. 235). St. Paul's first visit to Rome took place 
before the Neronian conflagration, but even after 
the restoration of the city, which followed upon 
that event, many of the old evils continued (Tac. 
Hist. iii. 71 ; Juv. Sat. iii. 193, 269). The popula- 
tion of the city ha.s been variously estimated : at half 
a million (by Dureau de la Malle, i. 403 and Meri- 
vale, Eom. Empire, iv. 525), at two millions and 
upwards (Hoeck, Eomische Goschichte, \. ii. 131 ; 
C. and H. Life of St. Paul, ii. 376 ; Diet, of Geogr. 
ii. 746), even at eight millions (Lipsius, De Mag- 
nitudine Eom., quoted in Diet, of Geogr.'). Pro- 
bably Gibbon's estimate of one million two hundred 
thousand is nearest to the truth (Milman's note on 
Gibbon, ch. xxxi. vol. iii. p. 120). One half of the 
population consisted, in all probability, of slaves. 
The larger part of the remainder consisted of pauper 
citizens supported in idleness by the miserable sys- 
tem of public gratuities. There appears to have 
been no middle class and no free industrial popu- 
lation. Side by side with the wretched clashes just 
mentioned was the comparatively small body of the 
wealthy nobility, of whose luxury and profligacy 
we hear so much in the heathen writers of the time. 
(See for calculations and proofs the works cited.) 

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

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

3 Y 2 



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

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

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

» 1. ai/Tt (Matt. ii. 22). 

2. xwpeti' (Mark ii. 2). 

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

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

printed in italics). 

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


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

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

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

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

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

EOOF. [House.] 

EOOM. This word is employed in the A. V. 
of the New Testament as the equivalent of no less 
than eight distinct Greek" terms. The only one 
of these, however, which need be noticed here is 
irpuTOKKiffia (Matt, xxiii. 6 ; Mark xii. 39 ; Luke 
xiv. 7, 8, XX. 46), which signifies, not a " room " 
in the sense we commonly attach to it of a chamber, 

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


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

xxii. 2). 

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


but the highest place on the highest couch round 
the dinner or supper-table — the " uppermost seat," 
as it is more accurately rendered in Luke xi. 43. 
[Meals.] The word "seat" is, however, generally 
appropriated by our translatoi-s to Ka64Spa, which 
.seems to mean some liind of official chair. In Lulie 
xiv. 9, 10, they liave rendered tSttos by both 
" place " and " room." 

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

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

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

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

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

» J>Ls^. Vl^ 



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

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

EOSH (JJ'N"): 'Vus: Ros). In the genealogy 
of Gen. xlvi. 21, Rosh is reckoned among the sons 
of Benjamin, but the name does not occur else- 
where, and it is extremely probable that " Ehi 
and Rosh" is a corruption of "Ahiram" (comp. 
Num. x,\vi. 38). See Burringtou's Genealogies, 
i. 281. 

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

translated by the Vulg. capitis, and by the A. V. 
" chief," as if C^'^{~l, " head"). The whole sentence 
thus rendered by the A. V. " Magog the chief prince 
of Meshech and Tubal," ought to run " Magog the 
prince of Rosh, Mesech, and Tubal ;" the word 
translated " prince " being K'Ji'J, the teiTu usually 
employed for the head of a nomad tribe, as of 
Abraham, in Gen. xxiii. 6, of the Arabians, Gen. 
xvii. 20, and of the chiefs of the several Israelite 
tribes. Num. vii. 11, xxxiv. 18, or in a general 
sense, 1 K. xi. 34, Ez. xii. 10, xlv. 7, xlvi. 2. 
The meaning is that Magog is the head of the three 
great Scythian tribes, of which " Rosh" is thus the 
first. Gesenius considers it beyond doubt that by 
Rosh, or 'Vus, is intended the trilje on the north of 
the Taurus, so called from their neighbourhood to 
the Rha, or Volga, and that in this name and tn'be 
we have the first trace of the Rcss or Rcssian 
nation. Von Hammer identifies this name with 
Rass in the Koran (xxv. 40; 1. 12), " the peoples 
Aad, Thamud, and the Asshabir (or inhabitants) of 
liass or Ross." He considers that JMohammed had 
actually the passage of Ezekiel m view, and that 
"Asshabir" corresponds to Nasi, the "prince" 
of the A. v., and apxovTa of the LXX. (Sur les 
Origines Russes, Petersbui-g, 1825, p. 24-29). The 
first certain mention of the Russians under this 
name is in a Latin Chronicle under the year a.d. 
839, quoted by Bayer {Origines Russicae, Com- 
ment. Acad. Petropol. 1726, p. 409). From the 
junction of Tiras with Meshech and Tubal in Gen. 
X. 2, Von Hammer conjectures the identity of Tiras 
and Rosh (p. 26). 

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

This early Biblical notice of so great an empire 
is doubly interesting fiom its being a solitary 
instaiice. No other name of anv modern nation 



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

ROSIN. Properly " naphtha," as it is both in 
the LXX. and Vulg. (vd<p9a, naphtha), as well as 
the Peshito-Syriac. In the Song of the Three 
Children (23), the seiTants of the king of Babylon 
are said to have " ceased not to make the oven hot 
with rosin, pitch, tow, and small wood." Pliny 
(ii. 101) mentions naphtha as a pioduct of Baby- 
lonia, similar in appearance to liquid bitumen, and 
having a remarkable affinity to fire. To this 
natural product (known also as Persian najihtha, 
petroleum, rock oil, Rangoon tar, Burmese naphtha, 
&c.) reference is made in the passage in question. 
Sir R. K. Porter thus describes the naphtha springs 
at Kirkook in Lower Courdistan, mentioned by 
Strabo (xvii. p. 738) : — " They are ten in number. 
For a considerable distance from them we felt the 
air sulphurous ; but in drawing near it became 
worse, and we were all instantly struck with ex- 
cruciating headaches. The springs consist of several 
pits or wells, seven or eight feet in diametei-, and 
ten or twelve deep. The whole number are within 
the compass of five hundred yards. A flight of 
steps has been cut into each pit for the purpose of 
approaching tiie fluid, which rises and falls according 
to the dryness or moisture of the weather. The 
natives lave it out with ladles into bags made of 
skins, which are carried on the backs of asses to 

Kirkook, or to any other mart for its sale 

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

Medes " naphtha." The Persian name is Ui'< 

(naft). Posidonius (in Strabo) relates that in Baby- 
lonia there were springs of black and white naphtha. 
The former, says Strabo (xvii. p. 743), were of 
liquid bitumen, which they burnt in lamj)s instead of 
oil. The latter were of liquid sulphur. [W. A. VV.J 

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

\l6ot, A. TToXvTfXels : cunctaa opes, cuncta pre- 
tiosisshna, gemmae, de ultimis finibus, ehor anti- 
quum), the invariable rendering of the above-na'ned 
Hebrew words, concerning the meaning of which there 
is much difference of opinion and great uncertainty. 

" The Chald. Tl (Esth. i. 6), which the A. V. renders 
" white," and which seems to be identical with the Arab. 

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




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

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

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

RUE {Trriyavov : ritta) occurs only in Luke xi. 
42 : " Woe unto you, Pharisees ! for ye tithe mint 
and rue and all manner of herbs." The rue heie 
spoken of is doubtless the common Huta graveolens, 
a shrubby plant about 2 feet high, of strong me- 
dicinal virtues. It is a native of the Mediterranean 
coasts, and has been found by Hasselqnist on Mount 
Tabor, pioscorides (iii. 45) describes two kinds 
of irrtyavov, viz. w. opetvSv and ir. K7}iT€vr6v, 
which denote the Ruta montana and Ii. graveoletis 
respectively. Rue was in great repute amongst the 
ancients, both as a condiment and as a medicine 
(Pliny, N. II. xix. 8 ; Columell. E. Bus. xii. 7, 
§5 ; Dioscorides, I. c). The Talmud enumerates 
rue amongst kitchen-herbs {Shebiith, ch. ix. §1), 
and legards it as free of tithe, as being a plant not 
cultivated in gardens. In our Lord's time, how- 
ever, rue was doubtless a garden-plant, and there- 
fore titheable, as is evident from our Lord's words, 
" these things ought ye to have done." The rue is 
too well known to need description. [W. H.] 

RU'FUS ('PoC<|)os : liiifi(s) is mentioned in 
Mark xv. 21, along with Alexander, as a son of 
Simon the Cyrenean, whom the .lews compelled to 
bear the cross of Jesus on the way to- Golgotha 
(Luke xxiii. 26). As the Evangelist informs his 
readers who Simon was by naming the sous, it is 
evident that the latter were better known than the 
father in the circle of Christians where Mark lived. 
Again, in Rom. xvi. 13, the Apostle Paul salutes a 
Rufus whom he designates as " elect in the Lord '' 
(e/cAe/crbj/ iv Kvploi), and whose mother he gi'ace- 
f'ully recognises as having earned a mother's claim 
upon himself by acts of kindness shown to him. It 
is generally supposed that this Rufus was identical 

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


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

KUHA/MAH (nJOriT : ■riKei]jx4vrt : misericor- 
diam consecuta). The margin of our version renders 
it "having obtained mercy" (Hos. ii. 1). The 
name, if name it be, is like Lo-ruhamah, sym- 
bolical, and as that was given to the daughter of 
the prophet Hosea. to denote that God's mercy was 
turned away from Israel, so the name Ruhamah is 
addressed to the daughters of the people to denote 
that they were still the objects of His love and tender 

EU'MAH inOn : 'Povfid ; Ale.x. 'Puyua; Joseph. 
'APovfia: liuma). Mentioned, once only (2 K. xxiii. 
36), as the native place of a certain Pedaiah, the 
father of Zebudah, a member of the harem of king 
Josiah, and mother of Eliakim or Jehoiakim king of 

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

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

EUSH. [Reed.] 

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



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

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

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



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

KYE (nDD3, cusscmeth: (ed, liXvpa: far, 
vicia) occurs in Ex. ix. 32; Is. xxviii.25: in the 
latter the margin reads " spelt." In Ez. iv. 9 the 
text has " fitches " and the margin "rie." There 
are many opinions as to the signification of Cus- 
scmeth; some authorities maintaining that fitches 
are denoted, others oats, and others rye. Celsius 
has shown that in all probability "spelt" is 
intended {Hierob. ii. 98), and this opinion is 
supported by the LXX. and the Vulg. in Ex. ix. 
o2, and by the Syriac versions. Rye is for the 
most part a northern plant, and was probably 
not cultivated in Egypt or Palestine in early 
times, whereas spelt has been long cultivated in 
the East, where it is held in high estimation. He- 
rodotus (ii. 36) says the Egyptians " make bread 
from spelt (arb oAupeW), which some call zea." See 
also Pliny (^N.H. xviii. 8) and Dioscorides (ii. Ill), 
who speaks of two kinds. The Cussemeth was cul- 
tivated in 'Egypt ; it \-fAi not injured by the hail- 
storm of the seventh plague (Ex. I. c), as it was 
not grown up. This ceieal \v:rs also sown in Pales- 
tine (Is. I.e.), on the margins or "headlands" of 
the fields (171715) ; it was used for mixing with 
wheat, barley, &c., for making bread (Ez. /. c). 
The Arabic, Chirsanat, " spelt," is regarded by Ge- 
senius as identical with the Hebrew word, m and n 
being interchanged and »• inserted. "Spelt" {Tri- 
ticuni spelta) is grown in some parts of the south 
of Germany ; it differs but slightly from our com- 
mon wheat {T. vulgare). There are three kinds of 
spelt, viz. T. spelta, T. dicoccmn (Rice wheat), and 
T. monococcum. [W. H.l 


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

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

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


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

" But thenceforth all shall rest eternally 
With Him that is the God of Sabaoth hight : 
that great Sabaoth God, gi'ant me that Sal>aoth's 
And Bacon, Advancement of Learning, ii. 24: — 
" . . . sacred and inspired Divinity, the Sabaoth and 
port of all men's labours and peregrinations." And 
Johnson, in the 1st edition of whose Dictionary 
(1755) Sabaoth and Sabbath are treated as the 
same word. And Walter Scott, Lvanhoe, i. ch. 11 
(ist ed.): — "a week, aye the space between two 
Saljaoths." Bat this connexion is quite fictitious. 
The two words are not only entirely different, but 
have nothing in common. 

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

SA'BAT (2a(f)d7; Alex. :S,a(pdT : Phasphat). 
1. The sons of Sabat are enumerated among the 
sons of Solomon's servants who returned with Zoro- 
babel (1 Esd. v. 34). There is no corresponding 
name in the lists of Ezra and Nehemiah. 

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

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

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

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

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

to the kindness of a friend. 

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


but traces that to 2')^, somewhat needlessly and 
fancifully, as it ajiix-ars to us. Plutarch's associa- 
tion of the word with the Bacchanalian cry <ro)3oi 
may of course be dismissed at once. We have also 
(Ex. xvi. 2'), and Lev. xxiii. 24) pn2L*', "f more 
intense signifi«ition than n3C' ; also JlnSL" n3t^', 
" a Sabbath of Sabbaths" (^Ex. xxxi. 15, and else- 
where). The name Sabbath is thus applied to divei's 
great festivals, but principally and usually to the 
seventh day of the week, the strict observance of 
which is enforced not merely in the general Mosaic 
code, but in the Decalogue itself. 

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

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

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



* Vide Patrick in foe, andSelden, Be Jure Nat. et Gent. 
iii. 9. 
b Vide Grotius in loc., who refers to Abeu-ezra. 

not considered to be under the law of the Sabbath. 
In the Fourth Commandment, too, the institution 
is grounded on the revealed truth of the six davs' 
creation and the Divine rest on the seventh ; but 
in the version of it which we find in Deuteronomy 
a further reason is added — " and remember that 
thou wast a stranger in the land of Egyjit, and 
that the Lord thy God brought thee forth with a 
luighty hand and by a stretched-out arm ; theiefore 
the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the 
Sabbath day" (Deut. v. 15). 

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

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

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

Before proceeding to any of the more curious 




inference from it. Still moie fantastic proliibitions 
were issued. It was unlawful to catch a ;iea on 
the Sahbath, except the insect were actually hnrt- 
incr his assailant, or to mount into a tree, lest a 
branch or twig; should be broken in the process. 
The Samaritans were especially rigid in matters 
like these; and Dositheus, who founded a sect 
amongst them, went so far as to mainfciin the obli- 
gation of a man's remaining throughout the Sabbath 
in the postm'e wherein he chanced to be at its com- 
mencement — n rule which most people would find 
quite destructive of its character as a day of rest. 
When minds were occupied with such micrology, as 
this has been well cnlled, there was obviously no limit 
to the number of prohibitions which they might 
devise, confusing, as they obviously did, abstinence 
from action of every sort with ) est irom business 
and labour. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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


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

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

In all this, however, we have but an assertion 
of the general principle of resting on the Sabbath, 
and must seek elsewhere for information as to the 
details wherewith that principle was to be brought 
out. We have already seen that the work forbidden 
is not to be confounded with action of every sort. 
To make this confusion was the error of the later 
Jews, and their prohibitions would go far to render 
the Sabbath incompatible with waking life. The 
terms in the commandment show plainly enough 
the sort of work which is contemplated. They are 
T2iin and n3X??D, the former denoting servile 
icorh, and the latter business (see Gesenius siib. voc. ; 
Michaelis, Laws of Moses, iv. 195). The Penta- 
teuch presents us with but three applications of the 
general principle. The lighting a fire in any house 
on the Sabbath was strictly forbidden (Ex. xxxv, 3), 
and a man was stoned for gathering sticks on that 
day (Num. xv. 32-36). The former prohibition is 
thought by the Jews to be of perpetual force ; but 
some at least of the Rabbis have held that it applies 
only to lighting a fire for culinary purposes, not to 
doing so in cold weather for the sake of warmth. 
The latter case, that of the man gathering sticks, 
was perhaps one of more labour and business than 
we are apt to imagine. The third application of 
the general principle which we find in the Penta- 
teuch was the prohibition to go out of the amip, 
the command to every one to abide in his place 
(Ex. xvi. 29) on the Sabbath-day. This is so ob- 
viously connected with the gathering the manna, 
that it seems most natural to regard it as a mere 
temporai'y enactment for the circumstances of the 
people in the wilderness. It was, however, after- 
wards considered by the Hebrews a permanent law, 
and applied, in the absence of the camp, to the city 
in whicli a man might reside. To this was ap- 
pended the dictum that a space of two thousand ells 
on every side of a city belonged to it, and to go 
that distance beyond the walls was permitted as 
" a Sabbath-day's journey." 

The reference of Isaiah to the Sabbath gives us 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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



ceperit Sabbntum, iili in his quae Deus prohibet 
exercent Sabbatum. A^aeatio nostia a malis operi- 
bus, Tacatio illoruni a bonis opei'ibus est. Melius 
est eniin arare quam saltare. lUi ab opeve liono 
vacant, ab opere uugatoiio non vacant " (Aug. 
Enarr. in Fsalinos, Ps. xci. : see too Aug. De 
decern Chordis, iii. 3; Chiysost. Homil I., De 
Lazaro; and other references given by Bingham, 
Eccl. Ant. lib. xx. cap. ii.). And if we take what 
alone is in the Law, we .shall find nothing to be 
counted absolutely obligatory but rest, cessation 
from labour. iS'ow, as we have more than once 
liad occasion to observe, rest, cessation from labour, 
cannot in the waking moments mean avoidance of 
all action. This, therefore, would be the question 
respecting the scope and purpose of tlie J^abbath 
which would always demand to be devoutly con- 
sidered and intelligently answered — what is truly 
I'est, what is that cessjition from labour which is 
really Sabbatical ? And it is plain that, in appli- 
<:atioii and in detail, the answer to this must almost 
indefinitely vary with men's varying circumstances, 
habits, education, and familiar associations. 

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

While the injunction in the Fourth Commandment 
to remember the Sabbath-day may i-cfer only to its 
previous institution in connexion with the gathering 


of mannn, or may be but tlie natural precept to 
keep in mind the rule about to be delivereil — a phrase 
natural, and continually recurring in the intercourse 
of life, as, for example, between parent and child — 
on the other hand, the perplexity of the Israelites 
respecting the double supjily of nianiui on tlie sixth 
day (I'^x. xvi. 22) leads us to infer that the Sabbath 
for which such extra supply was designed wa.s not 
then known to them. iMoreover the language of 
Ezekicl (xx.) seems to designate it as an ordinance 
distinctively Hebrew and Mosaic. 

We cannot then, from the uncertain notices which 
we possess, infer more than that the weekly division 
of time w;\s known to the Israelites and others befoi-e 
the Law of Moses. [Week.] There is pioba- 
bility, though not more, in the opinion of Grotius, 
tliat the seventh day was deemed sacred to reli- 
gious observance ; but that the Sabbatical observance 
of it, the cessation from labour, was superinduced 
on it in the wildejuess. 

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

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

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

1st. The i-eferences to it in the four Gospels are, 
it needs not be said, numerous enough. We have 
ali-eady seen the high position which it took in the 



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

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

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

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



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

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

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


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

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

The objections, however, to this exposition are 

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


many and great, one being, that it has occurred 
to so few amoug the great commentators who have 
laboured ou the Ep. to the Hebrews. Chrysostom 
(in loc.) denies that there is any reference to 
hebdomadal sabbatizing. Nor have we found any 
commentators, besides the two just named, who 
admit that there is such, with the single ejcception 
of Ebrard. Dean Alford notices the interpretation 
only to condemn it, while Dr. Hessey gives an- 
other, and that the usual explanation of the verse, 
suggesting a sulficient reason tor the change of word 
from KaTairavcTLS to (Ta^^arttTfi6i. It would not 
have been right, however, to have passed it over 
in this article without notice, as it relates to a 
passage of Scripture in which Sabbath and Sabba- 
tical ideas are markedly brought forward. 

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

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

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

The word Sabbath seems sometimes to denote a 
week in the N. T. Hence, by the Hebrew usage of 
reckoning time by airdinal numbers, ^v rrj /xi^ tSiv 
ffaP^aTciu, means on the first day of the week. 
The liabbis have the same phraseology, keeping, 
however, the word Sabbath in the singular. 

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

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

Literature : — Critici Sacri, on E.xod. ; Heylin's 
Hist, of the Sabbath ; Selden, I)e Jure Natur. 
et Gent. ; Buxtorf, De Synag. ; Barrow, Expos, 
of the Decalogue; Paley, Moral and Political 
Philosophy, v. 7 ; James, On the Sacraments and 
Sabbath ; Whately's Thoughts on the Sabbath ; 
Wardlaw, On the Sabbath ; Maurice, On the Sab- 
bath ; jMichaelis, Laws of Moses, arts, cxciv.-vi., 
clsviii. ; Oehler, in Herzog's Real-Encycl. " Sab- 
bath ;" \Nh\w, Eealworterbuch, "Sabbath;" Biihr, 
Symbolik des Mos. Cult. vol. h. bk. iv. ch. 11, §2 ; 
Kalisch, Historical and Critical Commentary on 
0. T. in Exod. XX. ; Proudhon, De la Celebration 
du Dimanche ; and especiidly Dr. Hessey 's Sunday ; 
the Bampton Lecture for 1860. [F. G.] 



b^6s, Acts i. 12). On ocaision of a violation of 
the commandment by certain of the people who 
went to look for manna on the seventh day, 
Moses enjoined every man to " abide in his 
place," and forbade any man to " go out of his 
place" ou that day (Ex. xvi. 29). It seems 
natural to look on this as a mere enactment 
pro re nata, and having no bearing on any state 
of ali'airs subsequent to the journey through the 
wilderness and the daily giithering of manna. 
Whether the earlier Hebrews did or did not regard 
it thus, it is not easy to say. Nevertheless, the 
natural inference from 2 K. iv. 23 is against the 
supposition of such a prohibition being known to 
the spokesman, Elisha almost certainly living — as 
may be seen from the whole naiTative — much 
more than a Sabbath Day's Journey from Shunem. 
Heylin infers from the incidents of David's flight 
from Saul, and Elijah's from Jezebel, that neither 
felt bound by such a limitation. Their situation, 
however, being one of extremity, cannot be safely 
argued fiom. In after times the precept m Ex. 
xvi. was 'undoubtedly viewed as a permanent law. 
But as some departure from a man's own plac6 
was unavoidable, it was thought necessary to de- 
termine the allowable amount, which was fixed at 
2000 paces, or about six furlongs, from the wall of 
the city. 

Though such an enactment may have proceeded 
from an erroneous view of Ex. xvi. 29, it is by 
no means so superstitious and unworthy on the 
face of it as are most of the Rabbinical rules and 
prohibitions respecting the Sabbath Day. In the 
case of a general law, like that of the Sabbath, 
some authority must settle the appliciition in 
details, and such an authority " the Scribes and 
Pharisees sitting in Moses' seat" were entitled to 
exercise. It is plain that the limits of the Sab- 
bath Day's Journey must have been a great check 
on the profanation of the day in a country where 
business was entirely agricultural or pastoial, and 
must have secured to " the ox and the ass " the 
rest to vfhich by the Law they were entitled. 

Our Saviour seems to refer to this law in 
warning the disciples to pray that their flight from 
Jerusalem in the time of its judgment should not 
be "on the Sabbath Day" (ilatt. xxiv. 20;. The 
Christians of Jerusalem would not, as in the case 
of Gentiles, feel free from the restrictions on jour- 
neying on that day ; nor would their situation en- 
able them to comply with the forms whereby such 
journeying when necessary was sanctified ; nor would 
assistance from those around be procurable. 

The permitted distance seems to have been 
grounded on the space to be kept between the 
Ark and the people [Josh. iii. 4) in the wilderness, 
which tradition said was that between the Ark and 
the tents. To repair to the Ark being, of course, 
a duty on the Sabbath, the walking to it was no 
violation of the day ; and it thus was taken as the 
measure of a lawful Sabbath Day's Journey. We 
find the same distance given as the circumference 
outside the walls of the Levitical cities to be 
counted as their suburbs (Num. xxxv. 5). The 
terminus a quo was thus not a man's own house, 
but the wall of the city wliere he dwelt, and thus 
the amount of lawful Sabbath Day's journeying 
must therefore have varied greatly ; the movements 
of a Jew in one of the small cities of his own land 
being restricted indeed when compared with those 
of a Jew in Alexandria, Antioch or Rome. 

3 Z 


When a man was oliliged to go farther than a 
Sabbath Day's Journey, on some good and allow- 
able ground, it was incumbent on him on the 
evening before to furnish himself with food enough 
for two meals. He was to sit down and eat at the 
appointed distance, to bury what he had left, and 
utter a thanksgiving to Cod for the appomted 
boundary. Next morning he was at liberty to 
make this point his terminus a quo. 

The Jewish scruple to go more than 2000 paces 
from his city on th^ Sabbath is referred to by 
Origen, irept' apxH", iv. 2 ; by Jerome, ad Alga- 
stain, quaest. 10 ; and by Oecumenius — with some 
apparent difterence between them as to the measure- 
ment. Jerome gives Akiba, Simeon, and Hillel, as 
the authorities for the lawful distance. [F. G-], 
SABBATHE'US f 2o)3)3aTa?os : Sabbathaeus). 
Shabbethai the Levite (1 l-:sd. ix. 14 ; comp. Ezr. 
X. 15). 

SABBATICAL YEAR. As each seventh day 
and each seventh month were holy, so was each 
seventh year, by the Mosaic code. We first en- 
counter this law in Ex. xxiii. 10, 11, given in 
words corresponding to those of the Fourth Com- 
mandment, and foftowed (ver. 12) by the re-en- 
tbrcement of that commandment. It is impossible to 
read the passage and not feel that the Sabbath Day 
and the Sabbatical year are parts of one general law. 
The commandment is, to sow and reap for six 
years, and to let the land rest on the seventh, 
" that the poor of thy people may eat ; and what 
they leave the beasts of the field shall eat." It is 
added, "In like manner thou shalt deal with thy 
vineyard and thy oliveyard." 

We next meet with the enactment in Lev. xxv. 
2-7, and finally in Deut. xv., in which last place 
the new feature presents itself of the seventh year 
being one of release to debtors. 

When we combine these several notices, we find 
that every seventh year the land was to have 
rest to enjoy her Sabbaths. Neither tillage nor 
cultivation of any sort was to be practised. The 
spontaneous growth of the soil was not to be reaped 
by the owner, whose rights of property were in 
abeyance. All were to have their share in the glean- 
in o^s : the poor, the stranger, and even the cattle. 

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

The claiming of debts was unlawful during this 
year, as we learn from Deut. xv. The exceptions 
laid down are in the case of a foreigner, and that of 
there being no poor in the land. This latter, how- 
ever, it is straightway said, is what will never 
happen. But though debts might not be claimed, 
it is not said that thev might not be voluntarily 


paid ; and it lias been questioned whether the re- 
lease of the seventh year was final or merely lasted 
through the year. This law wiis virtually abro- 
gated m later times by the well-known prosbol' of 
the great Hillel, a permission to the judges to 
allow a creditor to enforce his claim whenever he 
required to do so. The formula is given in the 
Mishna (Sheviith, 10, 4). 

The release of debtors during the Sabbatical year 
must not be confounded with the release of slaves 
on the seventh year of their service. The two are 
obviously distinct — the one occurring at one fixed 
time for all, while the other must have varied with 
various fomilies, and with various slaves. 

The spirit of this law is the same as that of the 
weekly Sabbath. Both have a beneficent ten- 
dency, limiting the rights and checking the sense of 
pioperty ; the one puts in God's claims on time, the 
other on the land. The land shall " keep a Sabbath 
unto the Lord." " The land is mine." 

There may also have been, as Kalisch conjectures, 
an eye to the benefit which would accrue to the 
land from lying fallow every seventh year, in a 
time when the rotation of crops was unknown. 

The Sabbatical year opened in the Sabbatical 
month, and the whole Law was to be read every 
such year, during the Feast of Tabeniacles, to the 
assembled people. It was thus, hke the weekly 
Sabbatli, no mere negative rest, but was to be 
marked by high and holy occupation', and connected 
with sacred reflection and sentiment. 

At the completion of a week of Sabbatical years, 
the Sabbatical scale received its completion in the 
year of Jubilee. For the question whether that 
was identical with the seventh Sabbatical j'ear, or 
was that which succeeded it, i. e. whether the year 
of Jubilee fell every forty-ninth or every fiftieth 
year, see Jubilee, Year of. 

The next question that presents itself regarding 
the Sabbatical year relates to the time when its 
observance became obligatoiy. It has been inferred 
from Leviticus xxv. 2, " When ye come into the 
land which I give you, then shall the land keep a 
Sabbath unto the Lord," that it was to be held by 
the people on the first year of their occupation of 
Canaan ; but this mei'e literalism gives a result in 
contradiction to the words which immediately fol- 
low: "Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six 
years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in 
the fruit thereof; but in the seventh year shall be 
a Sabbath of lest unto the land." It is more rea- 
sonable to suppose, with the best Jewish authori- 
ties, that the law became obligatory fourteen years 
after the first entrance into the Promised Land, the 
conquest of which took seven years and the distribu- 
tion seven more. 

A further question arises. At whatever period 
the obedience to this law ought to have commenced, 
was it in point of fact obeyed? This is an inquiry 
which reaches to more of the Mosaic statutes than 
the one now before us. It is, we apprehend, rare 
to see the whole of a code in full operation ; and 
the phenomena of Jewish histoiy previous to the 
Captivitv present us with no such spectacle. In the 
threatenings contained in Lev. xxvi., judgments on 
the violation of the Sabbatical year are particu- 
larly contemplated (vers. 33, 34) ; and that it was 
greatly if not quite neglected appears fi-om 2 Chron. 

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


xxxvi. 20, 21 : " Them that escaped from the sword 
carried he away to Babylon ; where they were 
servants to him and his sons until the reign of the 
kingdom of Persia : to fulfil the word of the Lord 
by the mouth of Jeremitxh, until the land had en- 
joyed her Sabbaths ; for as long as she lay desolate 
she kept Sabbath, to fulfil thi'eesoore and ton years." 
Some of the Jewish commentators have inferred 
from this that their forefathers had neglected exactly 
seventy Sabbatiad years. If such neglect was con- 
tinuous, the law must have been disobeyed through- 
out a period of 490 years, i. e. through nearly the 
whole duration of the monarchy ; and as there is 
nothing in the previous history leading to the in- 
ference that the people were more scrupulous then, 
we must look to the return from captivity for indi- 
cations of the Sabbatical year being actually ob- 
served. Then we know the fomier neglect was re- 
placed by a punctilious attention to the Law ; and as 
its leading feature, the Sabbath, began to be scrupu- 
lously reveienced, so we now find traces of a like 
observance of the Sabbatical year. We read (1 Mace, 
vi. 49) that " they came out of the city, because 
they had no victuals there to endure the siege, it 
being a year of rest to the land." Alexander the 
Great is said to have exempted the Jews from tri- 
bute during it, since it was unlawful for them to 
sow seed or reap harvest then; so, too, did Julius 
Caesar (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 10, §6). Tacitus {Hist. 
lil). V. 2, §4), having mentioned the oljservance of 
the Sabbath by the Jews, adds : — " Dein blau- 
dienti inertia septimum quoque annum ignaviae 
datum." And St. Paul, in reproaching the Ga- 
latians with their Jewish tendencies, taxes them 
with observing years as well as days and months 
and times (Gal. iv. lOj, from which we must infer 
that the teachers who communicateil to them those 
tendencies did more or less the like themselves. 
Another allusion in the N. T. to the Sabbatical year 
is perhaps to be found in the phrase, eV crajS/Sarij) 
SevTepoirpiirQ) (Luke vi. 1). Various explanations 
have laeen given of the term, but one of the most 
probable is that it denotes the first Sabbath of 
the second year in the cycle (Wieseler, quoted by 
Alford, vol. i.). [F. G.] 

SABBE'US (2oi8)3aias ; Alex. 2a)3(Saiox : Sa- 
ineas), 1 Esdr. ix. 32. [Shemaiah, 14.] 

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

SAB'TAH (nrinO, in 21 MSS. Nfiab', Gen. 
s. 7 ; ND^D, 1 Chr.-i. 9, A. V. Sabta : 'XaffaTdd : 
Sabathd). The third in order of the sons of Cush. 
In accordance with the identifications of the settle- 
ments of the Cushites in the article Arabia and 
elsewhere, Sabtah should be looked for along the 
southern coast of Arabia. The writer has found no 
traces in Arab writers ; but the statements of Pliny 
(vi. 32, §155, xii. 32), Ptolemy (\\. 7, p. 411), and 
Anon. Peripl. (27), rf ipecting Sabbatha, Sabota, or 
Sobotale, metiopolis of the Atramitae (probably the 
Chatramotitae), seem to point to a trace of the 
tribe which descended from Sabtah, always sup- 
posing that this city Sabbatha was not a corrup- 
tion or dialectic variation of Saba, Seba, or Sheba. 
This point will be discussed under Sheba. It is 
only necessary to remark here that the indications 
afforded by the Greek and Roman writers of Arabian 
geography require very cautious handling, pre- 



senting, as they do, a mass of contradictions and 
transparent travellers' tales respecting the unknowfi 
regions of Arabia the Happy, Arabia Thurifeia, &c. 
Ptolemy places Sabbatha in 77° long. 16° 30' lat. 
It was an important city, containing no less than 
sixty temples (Pliny, N. II. vi. c. xxiii. §32) ; it w;\s 
also situate in the territory of king Elisarus, or 
l^leazus (comp. Anon. Peripl. ap. Miillei-, Geoij. 
Min. 278-9), supposed by Presnel to be identical 
with " Ascharides," or " Alascharissoun," in Arabic 
(Journ. Asiat. Nouv. SeVie, x. 191). Winer thinks 
the identification of Sabtah with Sabbatha, &c., to 
be probable; and it is accepted by Bunsen {Bihel- 
v:crk, G'eu. x. and Atlas). It certainly occupies a 
position in which we should expect to find traces of 
Sabtah, where are traces of Cushite tribes in very 
early times, on their way, as we hold, from their 
earlier colonies in Ethiopia to the Euphrates. 

Gesenius, who sees in Cush only Ethiopia, "has 
no doubt that Sabtah should be compared with 
SajSar, 2ay8a, 2a;3at (see Strab. xvi. p. 770, 
Casaub. ; Ptol. iv. 10), on the shore of the Arabian 
Gulf, situated just where Arkiko is now, in the neigh- 
bourhood of which the Ptolemies hunted elephants. 
Amongst the ancient translators, Pseudojonatban 
saw the true meaning, rendering it ''XTDD, for 
which read *N"lJOD, i. e. the Sembritae, whom 
Strabo {loc. cit. p. 786) places in the same region. 
Josephus {Ant. i. 6, §1) understands it to be the 
inhabitants of Astabora " (Gesenius, ed. Tregelles, 
s. f .). Here the etymology of Sabtah is compared 
plausibly with 2a;8aT ; but when probability is 
against his being found in Ethiopia, etymology 
is of small value, especially when it is remem- 
bered that Sabat and its variations (Sabax, Sabai) 
may be related to Seha, which certainly was in 
Ethiopia. On the Rabbinical authorities which 
he quotes we place no value. It only remains 
to add that Michaelis {Suppl. p. 1712) removes 
Sabtah to Ceuta opposite Gibraltar, called in Arabic 

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

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

SAB'TECHA, aiid SAB'TECHAH (X^rinO •■ 
2a3ci9a/cci, 2e;8e0axa : Sabatacha, Sahathachn, 
Gen. X. 7, 1 Chr. i. 9). The fifth in order of the 
sons of Cush, whose settlements would probably be 
near the Persian Gulf, where are those of Raamah, 
the next before him in the order of the Cushites. 
[Raamah, Dedan, Sheba.] He has not been iden- 
tified with any Arabic place or distiict, nor satis- 
factorily with any name given by classical writers. 
Bochart (who is followed by Bunsen, Bibelw., Gen. 
X. and Atlas) argues that he shouhl be placed in Car- 
mania, on the Pei'sian shoi-e of the gulf, comparing 
Sabtechah with the city ofSamydace of Steph. Byz. 
{'S.afj.iSaKT] or 2a/iUK:a5r) of Ptol. vi. 8, 7). This ety- 
mology appeiirs to be very far-fetched. Gesenius 
merely says that Sabtechah is the proper name of a 
district of Ethiopia, and adds the reading of the Targ. 
Pseudojonatban CNJJT, Zingitani). [E. S. P.] 

SA'CAR ("Ob*: 'Axap ; Alex. 2oxap: Sachar). 
1. A Hararite, father of Ahiam, one of David's 
mighty men (1 Chr. xi. 35). In 2 Sam. xxiii. 33 
he is called Sharar, but Kennicott regards Sacar 
as the connect reading. 

3 Z 2 



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

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

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

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

The sambuca was a triangular instrument with 
four or moi-e strings played with the fingers. Ac- 
cording to Athenaeus (xiv. tJ33), Masurius described 
it as having a shrill tone ; and Euphorion, in his 
book on tlie Isthmian Games, said that it was used 
by the Parthians and Troglodytes, and had four 
strings. Its invention is attributed to one Sambyx, 
and to Sibylla its first use (Athen. xiv. 637). Juba, 
in the 4th book of his Theatrical History, says it 
was discovered in Syria, but Neanthes of Cyzicum, 
in the first book of the Hours, assigns it to the poet 
Ibyeus of Rhegium (Athen. iv. 77). This last tra- 
dition is followed by Suidas, who describes the sam- 
buca as a kind of triangular harp. That it was a 
foreign instrument is clear from the statement of 
Strabo (x. 471), who says its name is barbarous. 
Isidore of Seville {Orig. iii. 20) appears to regard 
it as a wind instrument, for he connects it with the 
sambucus, or elder, a kind of light wood of which 
pipes were made. 

The sambuca was early known at Rome, for 
Plautus (Stick, ii. 2, 57) mentions the women who 
played it (sambucae, or sambucistriae, as they are 
called in Livy, xxxix. 6). It was a favourite among 
the Greeks (Polyb. v. 37), and the Rhodian women 
appear to have been celebrated for their skill on 
this instrument (Athen. iv. 129). 

There was an engine called sambuca used in 
siege operations, which derived its name from the 
musical instrument, because, according to Athenaeus 
(xiv. 63-f), when raised it had the form of a ship 
and a ladder combined in one. [W. A. W.] 

SACKCLOTH (pb ;■ v^kkos: saccus). A 
coarse texture, of a dark colour, made of goats' 
hair (Is. 1. 3; Rev. vi. 12), and resembling the 
cilicium of the Romans. It was used (1.) for 
making sacks, the same word describing both the 
materia! and the article (Gen. xlii. 25 ; Lev. xi. 
32 ; Josh. ix. 4) ; and (2.) for making the rough 
gannents used by mourners, which were in extreme 
cases worn next the skin (1 K. xxi. 27; 2 K. vi. 
30; Job xvi. 15; is. xxxii. 11), and this even by 
females (Joel i. 8 ; 2 Mace. iii. 19), but at other 
times weie worn over the coat or cethoneth (.Jon. 
iii. 6) in lieu of the outer garment. The robe pro- 
bably resembled a sack in shape, and fitted close to 
the person, as we may infer from the ajiplication of 
the term chagar^ to the p:ocess of putting it on 
(2 Sam. iii. 31 ; Ez. vii. 18, &c.). it was con- 
fined by a girdle of similar material (Is. iii. 24). 
Sometimes it was worn throughout the night (1 K. 
xxi. 27). [W. L. B.] 

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

^ -ijn. 


SACRIFICE. The peculiar features of each 
kind of sacrifice are referred to under their re- 
spective heads ; the object of this article will be : — 

I. To examine the meaning and derivation of 
the various words used to denote sacrifice in Scrip- 

II. To examine the historical development of 
saciifice in the Old Testament. 

III. To sketch briefly the theory of sacrifice, as 
it is set forth both in the Old and New Testaments, 
with esjiecial reference to the Atonement of Christ. 

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

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

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

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

(c.) niT, zcbach, derived from the root PIST, to 
"slaughter animals," especially to "slay in sacri- 
fice," refers emphatically to a bloody sacrifice, one 
in which the shedding of blood is the essential 
idea. Thus it is opposed to minchah, in Ps. xl. 6 
{dvaiap Kal Trporrcpopdv), and to olah (the whole 
burnt-offering) in Ex. x. 25, xviii. 12, &c. With it 
the expiatory idea of sacrifice is naturally connected. 

Distinct fiom these general terms, and often 
appended to them, are the words denoting special 
kinds of sacrifice : — 

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

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

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

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

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

II. (A.) Origin of Saoitifice. 

In tracing the history of sacrifice, from its first 
beginning to its perfect development in the Mosaic 
ritual, we are at once met by the long-disputed 
question, as to the origin of sacrifice; whether it 
arose from a natural instinct of man, sanctioned 
and guided by God, or whether it was the subject 
of some distinct primeval revelation. 

It is a question, the importance of which lias 
probably been e.xaggeratcd. There can be no doubt, 


that sacrifice was sanctioned by God's Law, with a 
special typical reference to the Atonement of Christ; 
its univeisal prevalence, independent of, and often 
opposed to, man's natnral reasonings on his relation 
to God, shows it to have been primeval, and deeply 
rooted in the instincts ofliumanity. Whether it was 
first enjoined by an external command, or whether 
it was based on that sense of sin and lost communion 
with (iod, which is stamped by His hand on the 
heart of man — is a historical question, perhaps inso- 
luble, probably one which cannot be treated at all, 
except in connexion with some general theorv of the 
method of primeval revelation, but certainly one, 
which does not affect the authority aiid the meaning 
of the lite itself. 

The gi'eat difficulty in the theory, which refers 
it to a distinct command of God, is the total silence 
of Holy Scripture — a silence the more remarkable, 
when contrasted with the distinct I'eference made in 
Gen. ii. to the origin of the Sabbath. Sacrifice when 
first mentioned, in the case of Cain and Abel, is re- 
ferred to as a thing of course ; it is said to have 
been brought by men ; there is no hint of anv com- 
mand given by God. This consideration, the strength 
of which no ingenuity" has been able to impair, 
although it does not actually disprove the formal 
revelation of sacrifice, yet at lea<t forbids the asser- 
tion of it, as of a positive and important doctrine. 

Nor is the fact of the mysterious and super- 
natural character of the doctrine of Atonement, with 
which the sacrifices of the 0. T. are expressly con- 
nected, any conclusive argument c:: this side of the 
(juestion. All allow that the eucharistic and depre- 
catory ideas of sacrifice are perfectly natural to 
man. The higher view of its expiatory character, 
dependent, as it is, entirely on its typical nature, 
appears but gi'adually in Scripture. It is veiled under 
other ideas in the case of the patriarchal sacrifices. 
It is first distinctly mentioned in the Law (Lev. 
xvii. 11, &c.) ; but even then the theory of the sin- 
offering, and of the classes of sins to which it 
referred, is allowed io be obscure and difficult ; it 
is only in the N. T. (especially in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews) that its nature is clearly unfolded. It is 
as likely that it pleased God gradually to superadd 
the higiier idea to an institution, derived by man 
from the lower ideas (which must eventually find 
their justification in the higher), as that He ori- 
ginally commanded the institution when the time 
for the revelation of its full meaning v/as not yet 
come. The rainbow was just as truly the symbol 
of God's new promise in Gen. ix. 13-17, whether it 
had or had not existed, as a natural phenomenon 
before the Flood. What God sets His seal to, He 
makes a part of His revelation, whatever its origin 
may be. It is to be noticed (see Warburton's Div. 
Leg. ix. c. 2) that, except in Gen. xv. 9, the method 
of patriarchal sacrifice is left free, without any 
direction on the part of God, while in all the 
Mosaic ritual the limitation and regulation of sacri- 
fice, as to time, place, and material, is a most pro- 
minent feature, on which much of its distinction 
from heathen sacrifice depended. The inference is 



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

the elaborate reasoning on the translation of DNtSH 

In Gen. Iv. 7. Even supposing the version, a " sin- 
offering coucheth at the door" to be correct, on the 
ground of general usage of the word, of the curious version 
of the TAX., and of the remarkable grammatical con- 
struction of the masculine participle, with the feminine 
noun (as referring to the fact that the sin-offering was 

at least probable, that when God sanctioned foi-mally 
a natural rite, then, and not till then, did He define 
its method. 

The question, therefore, of the origin of sacrifice 
is best left in the silence, with which Scripture sur- 
rounds it. 

(B.) Ante-Mosaic Histokv of Sacrifick. 

In examining the various sacrifices, recorded in 
Scripture before the establishment of the Law, we 
find that the words .specially denoting expiatory 
sacrifice (DNtSn and U^H) are not applied to 
them. This fact does not at all show, that they 
were not actually expiatory, nor even that the 
offerers had not that idea of expiation, which must 
have been vaguely felt in all sacrifices; but it jus- 
tifies the inference, that this idea was not then the 
prominent one in the doctrine of sacrifice. 

The sacrifice of Cain and Abel is called minchah, 
although in the case of the latter it was a bloodv 
sacrifice. (So in Heb. xi. 4 the word Qviria is 
explained by the rols Sdpois below.) In the case 
of both it would appear to have been eucharistic, 
and the distinction between the ofierers to have 
lain in their " faith " ( Heb. xi. 4). Whether that 
fiith of Abel refen-ed to the promise of the Redeemer, 
and was connected with any idea of the typical 
meaning of sacrifice, or whether it was a simple 
and humble faith in the unseen God, as the giver 
and promiser of all good, we are not authorised by 
Scripture to decide. 

The sacrifice of Noah after the Flood (Gen. viii. 
20) is called bumt-oft'ering (olah). This sacrifice 
is expressly connected with the institution of the 
Covenant which follows in ix. 8-17. The same 
latification of a covenant is seen in the burnt- 
offering of Abraham, especially enjoined and defined 
by God in Gen. xv. 9 ; and is probably to be traced 
in the " building of altars " by Abraham on entering 
Canaan at iSethel (Gen. xii. 7, 8) and Mamre (.xiii. 
18), by Isaac at Beersheba (xx\-i. 25), and by Jacob 
at Shechem (.xxxiii. 20), and in Jacob's setting up 
and anointing of the pillar at Bethel (xxviii. IS, 
XXXV. 14). The sacrifice {zehach) of Jacob at Mizpah 
also marks a covenant with Laban, to which God 
is called to be a witness and a party. In*nll these, 
therefore, the prominent idea seems to have been 
what is called the federative, the recognition of a 
bond between the sacrificer and God, and the dedi- 
cation of himself, as represented by the victim, to 
the service of the Lord. 

The sacrifice of Isaac (Gen. xxii. 1-1.3) stands by 
itself, as the sole instance in which the idea of human 
sacrifice was even for a moment, and as a trial, 
countenanced by God. Yet in its principle it ap- 
pears to have been of the same nature as before : 
the voluntary surrender of an only son on Abraham's 
part, and the willing dedication of himself on Isaac's, 
are in the foregiound ; the expiatory idea, if recog- 
nised at all, holds certainly a secondary position. 

In the burnt-offisrings of Job for his children 
(.Tob i. 5) and for his three friends (xlii. 8), we, 
for the first time, find the expression of the desire 

actually a male), still It does not settle the matter. The 
Ijord even then speaks of sacrifice as existing, and as 
known to exist: He does not institute it The sup- 
position that the "skins of beasts" in Gen. iii. 21 were 
skins of animals sacrificed by God's command is a. pure 
assumption. The argument on Heb. xi. 4, that faith can 
rest only on a distinct Divine command as to the special 
occasion of its exercise, is contradicted by the general 
definition of it given in v. 1. 


of expiation for sin, accompanied by repentance and 
prayer, and brought pi'ominently forward. The 
sanie is the case in the words of Moses to Pharaoh, 
as to the necessity of sacrifice in the wilderness 
, (Ex. s. 251, where sacrifice (zcbach) is distinguished 
from burnt-otfering. Here the main idea is at least 
deprecatory ; the object is to appease the wrath, and 
avert the vengeance of God. 
(C.) The SAcraFiCES of the jMosaic Period. 
These are inauguratal by the ofiering of the 
Passover and the sacrifice of Ex. xxiv. The 
Passover indeed is unique in its character, and 
seems to embi-ace the peculiarities of all the various 
divisions of sacrifice soon to be established. Its 
ceremonial, however, most nearly resembles that of 
the -sin-offering in the emphatic use of tlie blood, 
which (after the first celebration) was poured at the 
bottom of the altar (see Lev. iv. 7), and in the care 
taken that none of the flesh should remain till the 
morning (see Ex. xii. 10, xxxiv. 2.5). It was unlike 
it in that the flesh was to be eaten by all (not burnt, 
or eaten by the priests alone), in token of their 
entering into covenant with God, and eating " at 
His table," as in the case of a peace-offering. Its 
peculiar position as a historical memorial, and its 
special reference to the future, naturally mark it 
out as incapable of being referred to any formal class 
of sacrifice; but it is" clear that the idea of sal- 
vation from death by means of sacrifice is brought 
out in it with a distinctness before unknown. 

The sacrifice of Ex. xxiv., offered as a solemn in- 
auguration of the Covenant of .Sinai, has a similarly 
comprehensive character. It is called a "burnt- 
offering" and "peace-offering" in v. 5; but the 
solemn use of the blood (comp. Heb. ix. 18-22) 
distinctly marks the idea that expiatory sacrifice 
was needed for entering into covenant with God, 
the idea of which the sin- and trespass-offerings 
were afterwards the symbols. 

The Law of Leviticus now unfolds distinctly the 
various forms of sacrifice : — 

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

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

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

To these may be added, — 

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

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

It is to be noticed that the Law of Leviticus 

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


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

In consequence of the peculiarity of the Law, it 
has been argued (as by Outram, Warburton, &c.) 
that the whole system of sacrifice was only a con- 
descension to the weakness of the people, borrowed, 
more or less, from the heathen nations, especially 
from Egypt, in order to guard against worse super- 
stition and positive idolatry. The argument is 
mainly based (see Warb. Div. Leg. iv., sect. vi. 2) 
on Ez. XX. 25, and similar references in the 0. and 
N. T. to the nullity of all mere ceremonial. Taken 
as an explanation of the theory of sacrifice, it is weak 
and superficial ; it labours under two fatal diffi- 
culties, the historical fact of the primeval existence of 
sacrifice, and its typical reference to the one Atone- 
ment of Christ, which was foreordained from the 
very beginning, and had been already typified, as, 
for example, in the sacrifice of Isaac. But as giving 
a reason for the minuteness and elaboration of the 
Jlosaic ceremonial, so remarkably contrasted with 
the freedom of patriarchal sacrifice, and as furnish- 
insc an explanation of cei-tain special rites, it may 
probably have some value. It certainly contains this 
truth, that the craving for visible tokens of God's 
presence, and visible rites of worship, from which 
idolatry proceeds, was provided for and turned into a 
safe channel, by the whole ritual and typical system, 
of which sacrifice was the centre. The contact with 
the gigantic system of idolatry, which prevailed in 
Egjpt", and which had so deeply tainted the spirit 
ofthe Israelites, would doubtless render such pro- 
vision then especially necessary. It was one part 
of the prophetic olfice to guard against its degrada- 
tion into formalism, and to bring out its spiritual 
meaninsT with an ever-increasing clearness. 

(D.) Post-Mosaic Sacrifices. 

It will not be necessaiy to pursue, in detail, the 
history of Post-JIosaic Sacrifice, for its main prin- 
ciples were now fixed for ever. The most remark- 
able instances of sacrifice on a large scale are by 
Solomon at the consecration of the Temple (1 K. 
viii. 63), by Jehoiada after the death of Athaliah 
(2 Chr. xxiii. 18), and by Hezekiah at his great 
Passover and restoration of the Temple-worship 

some authorized by special command; but tte Law pro- 
liably did not attain to its full strictness till the foundation 
of tlie Temple. 


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

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

(a.) Burnt-Offerings. 

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

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

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

(6.) Meat-Offerings. 

1. The daily meat-offerings accompanying the 
daily burnt-offerings (flour, oil, and wine) (Ex. 
xxix. 40, 41). 

2. The shew-bread (twelve loaves with frankin- 
cense), renewed ever}' Sabbath (Lev. xxiv. 5-9). 

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

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

(c.) Sin-Offekings. 

1. Sin-offering (a kid) each new moon (Num. 
xxviii. 15). 

2. Sin-offerings at the Passover, Pentecost, Feast 
of Trumpets, and Tabernacles (Num. xxviii. 22, 30, 
xxix. 5, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38). 

3. The offering of the two goats (the goat 
sacrificed, and the scape-goat) for the people, and 
of the bullock for the priest himself, on the Great 
Day of Atonement (Lev. xvi.). 

{d.) Incense. 

1. The morning and evening incense (Ex. xxx. 

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

Besides these public sacrifices, there were offer- 
ings of the people for themselves individually ; at 
the purification of women (Lev. xii.), the presenta- 
tion of the first-born, and circumcision of all male 
children, the cleansing of the leprosy (Lev. xiv.) or 
any uncleanness (Lev. xv.), at the fulfilment of 
Nazaritic and other vows (Num. vi. 1-21), on oc- 
casions of marriage and of burial, &c., &c., besides 
the frequent offering of private sin-offerings. These 
must have kept up a constant succession of sacri- 
fices every day ; and brought the rite home to 
every man's thought, and to every occasion of 
human life. 

(III.) In examining the doctrine of sacrifice, it is 
necessary to remember, that, in its development, 
the order of idea is not necessarily the same as the 
order of time. By the order of sacrifice in its per- 
fect form (as in Lev. viii.) it is clear that the sin- 
offering occupies the most important place, the 
bmirt-offering comes next, and the meat-offering or 
peace-offering last of all. The second could only 
be offered, after the first had bQ.en accepted; the 
third was only a subsidiary part of the second. 
Yet, in actual order of time, it has been seen, that 
the patriarchal sacrifices partook much more of 
the nature of the peace-offering and burnt-oiferino- ; 
and that, under the Law, by which was " the know- 

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

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

It is also obvious, that those, who believe in the 
unity of the O. and N. T., and the typical nature 
of the Mosaic Covenant, must view the type in 
constant reference to the antitype, and be prepared 
theiefore to find in the former vague and recondite 
meanings, which are fixed and manifested by the 
latter. The sacrifices must be considered, not merely 
as they stand in the Law, or even as they might 
have appeared to a pious Israehte; but as they 
were illustrated by the Prophets, and perfectly in- 
tei-preted in the N. T. {e. g. in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews). It follows from this, that, as belonging 
to a system wliich was to embrace all mankind in 
Its influence, they should be also compared and 
contiasted with the sacrifices and worship of God 
in other nations, and the ideas which in them were 
dimly and confusedly expressed. 

It is needless to dwell on the universality of 
heathen sacrifices,^ and difficult to reduce to any 
single theory the various ideas involved therein. 
It is clear, that the sacrifice Was often looked upon 
as a gift or tribute to the gods : an idea which (for 
example) runs through all Greek literature, from 
the simple conception in Homer to the caricatures 
of Aristophanes or Lucian, against the perversion 
of which St. Paul protested at Athens, when he de- 
clared that God needed nothing at human hands 
(Acts xvii. 25). It is also clear that sacrifices 
were used as prayers, to obtain benefits, or to avert 
wrath ; and that this idea was corrupted into the 
superstition, denounced by heathen satirists as well 
as by Hebrew prophets, that by them the gods' 
favour could be purchased for the wicked, or their 
" envy " be averted from the prosperous. On the 
other hand, that they were regarded as thank-offer- 
ings, and the feasting on their flesh as a partaking 
of the " table of the gods " (comp. 1 Cor. x. 20, 
21), is equally certain. Nor was the higher ideu 
of sacrifice, as a representation of the self-devotion 
of the offerer, body and soul, to the god, wholly 
lost, although generally obscured by the grosser 
and more obvious conceptions of the rite. But, 
besides all these, there seems always to have been 
latent the idea of propitiation, that is, the belief in a 
communion with the gods, natural to man, broken off 
in some way, and by sacrifice to be restored. The 
emphatic " shedding of the blood," as the essential 
part of the sacrifice, while the flesh was often eaten by 
the priests or the sacrificer, is not capable of any full 
explanation by any of the ideas above referred to. 
Whether it represented the death of the sacrificer, or 
(as in cases of national offering of human victims, 
and of those self-devoted for their country) an 
atoning death for him ; still, in either case, it con- 
tained the idea that " without shedding of blood is 
no remission," and so had a vague and distorted 
glimpse of the great central truth of Revelation. 
Such an idea may be (as has been argued) " unna- 
tural," in that it could not be explained by natural 
reason ; but it certainly was not unnatural, if fre- 
quency of existence, and accordance with a deep 
natural instinct, be allowed to preclude that epithet. 

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



these ideas. The very names used in it for sacri- 
fice (as is seen above) involve the conception of the 
rite as a gift, a fonn of worship, a thank-oflering:, a 
selMevotinn, and an atonement. In fact, it brings 
out, clearly and distinctly, the ideas which in hea- 
thenism were uncertain, vague, and pen-erted. 

But the essential points of distinction are two. 
First, that whereas the heathen conceived of their 
gods as alienated in jealousy or anger, to be sought 
after, and to be appeased by the unaided action of 
man. Scripture represents God Himself as approach- 
.ing man, as pointing out and sanctioning the way 
by which the broken covenant should, be i-estored. 
This was impressed on the Israelites at every step 
by the minute directions of the Law, as to time, 
place, victim, and ceremonial, by its utterly dis- 
countenancing the " will-worship," which in hea- 
thenism foimd full scope, and rioted in the invention 
of costly or monstrous sacrifices. And it is espe- 
cially to be noted, that this particularity is increased, 
as we approach nearer to the deep propitiatory idea ; 
for that, whereas the patriarchal sacrifices generally 
seem to have been unciefined by God, and even under 
the Law, the nature of the peace-offerings, and ( to 
.some extent, the burnt-offerings, was determined by 
the sacrificer onlv, the solemn sacrifice of Abraham 
in the inauguration of his covenant was prescribed 
to him, and the sin-offerings under the Law were 
most accurately and minutel)' determined. (See, for 
e.xample, the whole ceremonial of Lev. xvi.) It is 
needless to remark, how this essential difference 
purifies all the ideas above noticed from the cori-up- 
tions, which made them odious or contemptible, 
and sets on its true basis the I'elation between God 
and fallen man. 

The second mark of distinction is closely con- 
nected with this, inasmuch as it shows sacrifice to 
be a scheme proceeding from God, and, in His fore- 
knowledge, connected with the one central fact of 
all human history. It is to be found in the typical 
character of all .lewish sacrifices, on which, as the 
Epistle to the Hebrews argues, all their efficacy 
depended. It must be remembered that, like other 
ordinances of the Law, they had a twofold effect, 
depending on the special position of an Israelite, as a 
member of the natural Theocracy, and on his general 
position, as a man in relation with God. Un the 
one hand, for example, the sin-offering was an 
atonement to the national law for moral offences of 
negligence, which in " presumptuous," i. e. de- 
liberate and wilful crime, was rejected (see Num. 
XV. 27-31 ; and comp. Heb. x. 26, 27). On the 
other hand it had, as the prophetic writings show 
us, a distinct spiritual significance, as a means of 
expressing repentance and reeei\ing forgiveness, 
which could have belonged to it only as a type of the 
Great Atonement. How far that typical meaning 
was recognized at different periods and by diffei-ent 
persons, it is useless to speculate : but it would be 
impossible to doubt, even if we had no testimonv 
on the subject, that, in the face of the high spiritual 
teaching of the Law and the Prophets, a pious 
Israelite must have felt the nullity of material 
sacrifice in itself, and so believed it to be availing 
only as an ordinance of God, shadowing out some 
gieat spiritual ti-uth, or action of His. Nor is it 

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

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


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

The nature and meaning of the various kinds of 
sacrifice is partly gathered from the form of their 
in'-jtitution and ceremonial, partly from the teaching 
of the Prophets, and partly from the N. T., especi- 
ally the Epistle to the Hebrews. All had relation, 
under different aspects, to a Covenant between God 
and man. 

The Six-OFFERiKG repi^seuted that Covenant as 
broken by man, and as knit together again, by God's 
appointment, through the " shedding of blood." 
Its characteristic ceremonv was the sjtrinkling of 
the blood before the veil of the Sanctuary, the put- 
ting some of it on the horns of the altar of incense, 
and the pouring out of all the rest at the foot of 
the altar of burnt-offering. The flesh was in no 
case touched by the offerer; either it was consumed 
by fire without the camp, or it was eaten by the 
priest alone in the holy place, and eveiything that 
touched it was holy (EJ'lp).'' This latter point 
marked the distinction from the peace-offering, and 
showed that the sacrificer had been rendered un- 
worthy of communion with God. The shedding of 
the blood, the symbol of life, signified that the 
death of the offender was deserved for sin, but that 
the death of the victim was accepted for his death 
by the ordinance of God's mercy. This is seen 
most clearly in the ceremonial of the Day of Atone- 
ment, when, after the sacrifice of the one goat, the 
high-priest's hand was laid on the head of the scape- 
goat —which was the other part of the sin-offering — 
with confession of the sins of the people, that it 
might visibly bear them away, and so bring out 
explicitly, what in other sin-offerings was but 
implied. Accordingly we find (see quotation from 
the Mishna in Outr. Be Sacr. i. c. xv., §10) that, 
in all cases, it was the custom for the offerer to lay 
his hand on the head of the sin-offering, to confess 
generally or specially his sins, and to say, " Let this 
be my expiation." Beyond all doubt the sin-offer- 
ing distinctly witnessed, that sin existed in man, 
that the " wages of that sin was death," and that 
God had provided an Atonement by the vicarious 
suffering of an appointed victim. The reference of 
the Baptist to a " Lamb of God who taketh away 
the sins of the world," was one understood and 
hailed at once by a " true Isiaelite." 

The ceremonial and meaning of the BcRNT- 
OFFERING were very ditierent. The idea of ex- 
piation seems not to have been absent from it (for 
the blood was sprinkled round about the altar of 
sacrifice) ;* and, before the Levitical ordinance of the 
sin-offering to precede it, this idea may have been 
even prominent. But in the system of Leviticus 
it is evidently only secondar}'. The main idea is 
the ofi'ering of the whole victim to God, lepresenting 
(as the laying of the hand on its head shows) the 

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


devotion of the sacrifice!-, body and soul, to Him. 
The death of the victim was (so to speak) an inci- 
dental feature, to signify the completeness of the 
devotion ; and it is to be noticed that, in all solemn 
sacrifices, no burnt-ofleriiig could be made until a 
previous sin-olfering had brought the sacrificer 
again into covenant with Ood. The main idea of 
this sacrifice must have been representative, not 
vicarious, and the best comment upon it is the 
exhortation in Rom. xii. 1, "to present our bodies 
a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God." 

The Meat-offerings, the peace or thank- 
offering, the tirst-fruits, &c., were simply offerings 
to God of His own best gifts, as a sign of thankful 
homage, and as a means of maintaining His service 
and His servants. Whether they were regular or 
voluntary, individual or national, independent w 
subsidiary to other offerings, this was still the lead- 
ing idea. The meat-offering, of flour, oil, and wine, 
.seasoned with salt, and hallowed by frankincense, 
was usually an appendage to the devotion implied 
in the burnt-otfering ; and the peace-offerings for 
the people held the same place in Aaron's first 
sacrifice (Lev. ix. 22), and in all others of special 
solemnity. The characteristic ceremony in the pe.ace- 
offering was the eating of the flesh by the sacrificer 
(after the fat had l3een burnt befoi-e the Lord, and 
the breast and shoulder given to the priests). It 
betokened the enjoyment of- communion with God 
at " the table of the Lord," in the gifts which His 
mercy had bestowed, of which a choice portion was 
offered to Him, to His servants, and to His poor 
(see Deut. xiv. 28, 29). To this view of sacrifice 
allusion is made by St. Paul in Phil. iv. 18 ; Heb. 
xiii. 15, 16. It follows naturally from the other 

It is clear from this, that the idea of sacrifice is a 
complex idea, involving the propitiatory, the dedi- 
catory, and the eucharistic elements. Any one of 
these, taken by itself, would lead to error and 
superstition. The propitiatory alone would tend 
to the idea of atonement by sacrifice for sin, as 
being effectual without any condition of repentance 
and faith ; the self-dedicatory, taken alone, ignores 
the barrier of sin between man and God, and under- 
mines the whole idea of atonement ; the eucharistic 
alone leads to the notion that mere gifts can satisfy 
God's service, and is easily penTrted into the 
heathenish attempt to "bribe" God by vows and 
offerings. All three probably were more or less 
implied in each sacrifice, each element predomi- 
nating in its turn : all must be kept in mind in 
considering the historical influence, the spiritual 
meaning, and the typical value of sacrifice. 

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

who " cease to do evil and learn to do well 

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



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

The same truth, here enunciated from without, 
is recognized from within by the Psalmist. Thus 
he says, in Ps. xl. 8-11, " Sacrifice and meat- 
oft'ering, bui-nt-offering and sin-offering. Thou hast 
not required;" and contrasts with them the ho- 
mage of the heart — " mine ears hast Thou bored," 
and the active service of life — " Lo! I come to do 
Thy will, OGod." In Ps. 1. 13, 14, sacrifice is 
contrasted with prayer and adoration (comp. Ps. 
cxli. 2) : « Thinkest thou that I will eat bulls' flesh, 
and drink the blood of goats? Offer unto God 
thanksgiving, pay thy vows to the Most Highest, 
and call upon me in time of trouble.'' In Ps. li. 
16, 17, it is similarly contrasted with tnie re- 
pentance of the heart: " The sacrifice of God is a 
troubled spirit, a broken and a contrite heart." 
Yet here also the next verse shows that sacrifice 
was not superseded, but purified : " Then shalt thou 
be pleased with burnt-offerings and oblations ; then 
shall they off'er 3'oung bullocks upon thine alter.'' 
These passages are correlative to the others, express- 
ing the feehngs, which those others in God's Name 
require. It is not to be argued from them, that this 
idea of self-dedication is the main one of sacrifice. 
The idea of propitiation lies below it, taken for 
granted by the Prophets as by the whole people, 
but stiU enveloped in mystery until the Antitype 
should come to make all clear. For the evolution 
of this doctrine we must look to the N. T. ; the 
preparation for it by the Prophets was (so to speak) 
negative, the pointing out the nullity of all other 
propitiations in themselves, and then leaving the 
warnings of the conscience and the cravings of the 
heart to fix men's hearts on the better Atonement 
to come. 

Without entering directly on the gi'eat subject 
of the Atonement (which would be foreign to the 
scope of this article), it will be sufficient to refer to 
the connexion, established in the N. T., between it 
and the sacrifices of the Mosaic system. To do this, 
we need do little more than analyse the Epistle to 
the Hebrews, which contains the key of the whole 
sacrificial doctrine. 

In the first place, it follows the prophetic books 
by stating, in the most emphatic terms, the intrinsic 
nullity of all mere material sacrifices. The "gifts 
and sacrifices" of the first tabernacle could " never 
make the sacrificers perfect in conscience" {Kara 
(rvvelSrifftv) ; they were but " carnal ordinances, im- 
posed on them till the time of reformation" (Si&p- 
Ociaeais) (Heb. ix. 9, 10). The veiy fact of their 
constant repetition is said to prove this imperfection. 



which depends on tlie fundamental principle, " that 
it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats 
should take away sin " (x. 4). But it does not 
lead us to infer, that they actually had no spiritual 
efficacy, if nllered in repentance and feith. On the 
contrary, the object of tiie whole Epistle is to show 
their typical and probationary character, and to 
assert that in virtue of it alone they had a spiiitual 
meaning. Our Lord is declared (see 1 Pet. i. 20) 
" to have been foreordained " as a sacrifice " before 
the foundation of tlie world ;" or (as it is more 
strikingly expressed in Rev. xiii. 8) " slain from the 
foundation of the world." The material sacrifices 
represented this Great Atonement, as already made 
and accepted in God's foreknowledge ; and to those 
who grasped the ideas of sin, pardon, and self- 
dedication, symbolized in them, they were means 
of entering into the blessings which the One True 
Sacrifice alone procured. Otherwise the whole sacri- 
ficial system could have been only a superstition 
and a snare. The sin^ provided tor by the sin- 
offering were cei'tainly in some cases moral. [See 
Sin-Offeiiing.] The whole of the Mosaic de- 
scription of sacrifices clearly implies some real spi- 
ritual benefit to be derived fi'om them, besides the 
temporal privileges belonging to the national theo- 
cracy. Just as St. Paul argues (Gal. iii. 15-29) 
that the Promise and Covenant to Abraham were of 
primary, the Law only of secondary, importance, 
so that men had urider the Law more than they had 
hy the Law ; so it must be said of the Levitical 
sacrifices. They could convey nothing in them- 
selves ; yet, as types, they might, if accepted by a 
true, though necessarily imperfect, faith, be means 
of conveying in some degree the blessings of the 

This typical character of all sacrifice being thus 
set forth, the next point dwelt upon is the union in 
our Lord's Person of the priest, the offerer, and the 
.sacrifice. [Priest.] The imperfection of all sacri- 
fices, which made them, in tiiemselves, liable to 
superstition, and even inexplicable, lies in this, 
that, on the one hand, the victim seems arbitrarily 
chosen to be the substitute for, or the representative 
of, the sacrificer ;f and that, on the other, if there 
be a barrier of sin between man and God, he has no 
right of approach, or security that his sacrifice will 
be accepted ; that there needs, therefore, to be a 
Mediator, i. c. (according to the definition of Heb. 
v. 1-4), a true Priest, who shall, as being One with 
man, offer the sacrifice, and accept it, as being One 
with God. It is shown that this imperfection, which 
necessarily existed in all types, without which indeed 
they would have been substitutes, not preparations 
for the Antitype, was altogether done away in Him ; 
that in the first place He, as the I'epresentative of 
the whole human race, off'eied no arbitrarily-chosen 
victim, but the willing sacrifice of His own blood; 
that, in the second, He was ordained by God, by a 
solemn oath, to be a high-priest for ever, " aftei- tlie 
order of Melchizedek," one " in all points tempted like 
as we are, yet without sin," united to our human 
nature, susceptible to its infirmities and trials, yet, 
at the same time, the True Son of God, exalted far 
above all created things, and ever living to make 
Intercession in heaven, now that His sacrifice is 
over ; and that, in tlie last jdace, the barrier between 
man and God is by His mediation done away lor 
ever, and the Most Holy Place once for all opened 

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


to man. All the points, in the doctrine of saciifice, 
which had before been unintelligible, were thus 
made clear. 

This being the case, it next follows that all the 
various kinds of sacrifices were, each in its measure, 
representatives and types of the various aspects of 
the Atonement. It is clear that the Atonement, in 
this Epistle, as in the N. T. generally, is viewed in 
a twofold light. 

On the one hand, it is set forth distinctly as a 
vicarious sacrifice, which was rendered necessary by 
the sin of man, and in which the Lord " bare the 
sins of many." It is its essential characteristic, 
that in it He stands absolutely aione, ofl^ering His 
sacrifice without any reference to the taith or the 
conversion of men — ortei'ing it indeed for those who 
" were still sinners" and at enmity with God. 
Moreover it is called a " pi'opitiation " {iKaafxSs or 
i\a(TT-fiptov, Kom. iii. 24 ; 1 John ii. 2) ; a " ran- 
som" {airoXvTpoims, Rom. iii. 25; 1 Cor. i. 30, &c.); 
which, if words mean anything, must imply that it 
makes a change in the relation between God and man, 
from separation to union, from wivith to love, and 
a change in man's state from bondage to freedom. 
In it, then. He stands, out alone as the Mediator 
between God and man ; and His sacrifice is offered 
once for all, never to be imitated or repeated. 

Now this view of the Atonement is set forth in 
the Epistle to the Hebrews, as typified by the sin- 
offering; especially by that particular sin-offering 
with which the high-priest entered the Most Holy 
Place on the Great Day of Atonement (fx. 7-12) ; 
and by that which hallowed the inauguration of the 
Mosaic covenant, and cleansed the vessels of its mi- 
nistration (ix. 13-23). In the same way, Christ is 
called " our Passover, sacrificed tor us " (1 Cor. 
V. 7) ; and is said, in even more startling language, 
to have been " made sin for us," though He " knew 
no sin" (2 Cor. v. 21). This typical relation is 
pursued even into details, and oui- Lord's suff^ering 
without the city is compared to the burning of the 
public or priestly sin-offerings without the camp 
(Heb. xiii. 10-13). The altar of sacrifice (Qvaia- 
(TTTiptov) is said to have its antitype in His Passion 
(xiii. 10). All the expiatory and propitiatory sacri- 
fices of the Law are now for the first time bi'ought 
into full light. And though the principle of vicarious 
sacrifice still remains, and must remain, a mystery, 
yet the fact of its existence in Him is illustrated by 
a thousand types. As the sin-oflfering, though not 
the earliest, is the most fundamental of all sacrifices, 
so the aspect of the Atonement, which it symbolizes, 
is the one on which all others rest. 

On the other hand, the sacrifice of Christ is set 
forth to us, as the completion of that perfect obe- 
dience to the will of the Father, which is the natural 
duty of sinless man, in which He is the repre- 
sentative of all men, and in which He calls upon us, 
when reconciled to God, to " take up the Cross and 
follow Him." " In the days of His flesh He offered 
up prayers and supplications . . . and was heard, in 
that He feared ; though He were a Son, yet learned 
He obedience by the things which He suffered : 
and being made perfect " (by that suffering ; see 
ii. 10), " He became the author of salvation to all 
them that obey Him" (v. 7, 8, 9). In this view 
His death is not the principal object ; we dwell 
rather on His lowly Incarnation, and His life of 
humility, temptation, mid suffering, to which that 

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


death was but a fitting close. In the passage above 
referreil to the allusion is not to the Cross of Calvary, 
but to the agony in Gethsemane, which bowed His 
human will to the will of His Father. The main 
idea of this view of the Atonement is representative, 
rather than vicai-ious. In the first view the " second 
Adam " undid by His atoning blood the work of evil 
which the first Adam did ; in the second He, by His 
perfect obedience, did that which the first Adam 
left undone, and, by His grace making us like Him- 
self, calls upon us to follow Him in the same path. 
This latter view is typified by the burnt-offering : 
in respect of which the N. T. merely quotes and 
enforces the language already cited from the 0. T., 
and especially (see Heb. x. 6-9) the words of Ps. xl. 
6, &c., which contrast with material sacrifice the 
" doing the will of Cod." It is one, which cannot be 
dwelt upon at all without a previous implication of 
the other ; as both were embraced in one act, so are 
thev inseparably connected in idea. Thus it is put 
forth in Rom. xii. 1, where the "mercies of God" 
(i. <?. the free salvation, through the sin-offering of 
Christ's blood, dwelt upon in all the preceding part 
of the Epistle) are made the ground for calling on 
us " to present our bodies, a living sacrifice, holy 
and acceptable to God," inasmuch as we are all (see 
v. 5) one with Christ, and members of His body. 
In this sense it is that we are said to be " crucified 
with Christ" (Gal. ii. 20; Horn. vi. 6); to ha\« 
"the sufferings of Christ abound in us" (2 Cor. i., 
5); even to " fill up that which is behind" (to 
ixTTep^fxara) thereof (Col. i. 24) ; and to " be 
offered" [aireuSeaOat) " upon the sacrifice of the 
faith " of others (Phil. ii. 17 ; comp. 2 Tim. iv. 6 ; 
1 John iii. 16). As without the sin-offering of the 
Cross, this, our burnt-offering, would be impossible, 
so also without the burnt-offering the sin-olfering 
will to us be unavailing. 

With these views of our Lord's sacrifice on earth, 
as typified in the Levitical sacrifices on the outer 
altar, is also to be connected the offering of His In- 
tercession for us in heaven, which was represented 
by the incense. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, this 
part of His priestly office is dwelt upon, with parti- 
cular reference to the offering of incense in the Most 
Holy Place by the high-priest on the Great Day of 
Atonement (Heb. ix. 24-28; comp. iv. 14-16, vi. 
19, 20, vii. 25). It implies that the sin-offering 
has been made once for all, to rend asunder the veil 
(of i?in) between man and God ; and that the conti- 
nual burnt-o^ering is now accepted by Him for the 
sake of the Great Interceding High-priest. That 
intercession is the strength of our prayers, and 
" with the smoke of its incense " they rise up to 
heaven (Kev. viii. 4). [Prayer.] 

The typical sense of the meat-ofiering, or peace- 
offering, is less connected with the sacrifice of Christ 
Himself, than with those sacrifices of praise, thanks- 
giving, charity, and devotion, which we, as Chris- 
tians, offer to God, and " with which He is well 
pleased" (Heb. xiii. 15, 16) as with "an odour of 
sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable to God" (Phil. 
iv. 18). They betoken that, through the peace won 
by the sin-offering, we have already been enabi,-d 
to dedicate ourselves to God, and they are, as it 
weie, the ornaments and accessories of that self- 

Such is a brief sketch of the doctrine of Sacrifice. 
It is seen to have been deeply rooted in men's hearts ; 
and to have been, from the beginning, accepted and 
sanctioned by God, and made by Him one channel 



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

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

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

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

SADDE'USfAoSSaTos; Alex. AoXSaTos : Lod- 
deus). " Iddo, the chief at the place Casiphia," is 
called in 1 Esd. viii. 45, " Saddens the captain, who 
was in the place of the treasury." In 1 Esd. viii. 
46 the name is written " Daddeus " in the A. V., 
as in the Geneva Version of both passages. 

SAD'DUC (2aS5ovKos: Sadoc). Zadok the 
high-priest, ancestor of Ezra (1 Esd. viii. 2). 

SADDUCEES {'ZaSSovKoioi : Sadducaei : 
Matt. iii. 7, .xvi. 1, 6, 11, 12, xxii. 23, 34; Mark 
xii. 18 ; Luke xx. 27 ; Acts iv. 1, v. 17, xxiii. 6, 7, 8). 
A religious party or school among the .lews at the 
time of Christ, who denied that the oral law was a 
revelation of God to the Israelites, and who deemed 
the written law alone to be obligatory on the 
nation, as of divine authority. Although frequently 
mentioned in the New Testament in conjunction 
with the Pharisees, they do not throw such vivid 
light as their great antagonists on the real signi- 
ficance of Christianity. Except on one occasion, 
when they united with the Pharisees in insidiously 
asking for a sigu from heaven (Matt. xvi. 1, 4, 6), 
Christ never assailed the Sadducees with the same 
bitter denunciations which he uttered against the 
Pharisees ; and they do not, like the Pharisees, 
seem to have taken active measures for causing Him 
to be put to death. In this respect, and in many 
others, they have not been so influential as the 
Pharisees in the world's history ; but still they 
deserve attention, as representing Jewish ideas'before 
the Pharisees became triumphant, and as illus- 
trating one phase of Jewish thought at the time 
when the new religion of Christianity, destined to 
produce such a momentous revolution in the opinions 
of mankind, issued from Judaea. 

Authorities. — The sources of information respect- 
ing the Sadducees are much the same as for the 
Pharisees. [Piiarisp:es, p. 885.] There are, how- 
ever, some exceptions negatively. Thus, the Sad- 
ducees are not spoken of at all in the fourth Gospel, 
where the Pharisees are frequently mentioned, John 
vii. 32, 45, xi. 47, 57, xviii.'S, viii. 3, 13-19, ix. 13 ; 

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



portant in reference to the criticism of the Gospels 
( Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel, p. 11)7). 
Moreover, while St. Paul had been a Pharisee and 
was the son of a Pharisee ; while Josephus was a 
Pharisee, and the Jlishna was a Pharisaical digest 
of Pharisaical opinions and practices, not a sinjcle 
undoubted writing of an aclcnowledged Sadducee 
has come down to us, so that for an acquaintance 
with their opinions we are mainly dependent on 
their antagonists. This point should be always 
borne in mind in judging their opinions, and fonning 
an estimate of their chai'acter, and its full bearing 
will be duly appreciated by those who reflect that 
even at the present da_y, with all the checks against 
misrepresentation arising fiom publicity and the 
invention of printing, probably no religious or poli- 
tical party in England would be content to accept 
the statements of an opponent as giving a coiTect 
view of its opinions. 

Origin of the name. — Like etymologies of words, 
the origin of the name of a sect is, in some cases, 
almost wholly immaterial, while in other caces it is 
of extreme importance towards understanding opi- 
nions which it is proposed to investigate. The 
origin of the name Sadducees is of the latter de- 
scription ; and a reasonable certainty on this point 
would go far towards ensuring correct ideas respect- 
ing the position of the Sadducees in the Jewish State. 
The subject, however, is involved in great diffi- 
culties. The Hebrew word by which they are 
called in the Mishna is Tsedukhn ; the plural of 
Tsadok, which undoubtedly means "just," or 
" righteous," but which is never used in the Bible 
except as a proper name, and in the Anglican Version 
is always translated " Zadok " (2 K. xv. .33 ; 2 
Sam. \\\\. 17 ; 1 Chr. vi. 8, 13, &c. ; Neh. iii. 4, 29, 
xi. 11). The most obvious translation of the word, 
therefore, is to call them Zadoks or Zadokites ; and 
a question would then arise as to why they were so 
called. The ordinary Jewish statement is that 
they are named from a certain Zadok, a discijile 
of the Antigonus of Socho, who is mentioned in 
the Mishna (^Avoth i.) as having received the oral 
law from Simon the Just, the last of the men of 
the Great Synagogue. It is recorded of this Anti- 
gonus that he used to say: " Be not like servants 
who serve their Master for the sake of receiving a 
rewai'd, but be like servants who sen'e their master 
without a view of receiving a reward ;" and the 
current statement has been that Zadok, who gave 
his name to the Zadokites or Sadducees, misinter- 
preted this saying so far, as not only to maintain 
the great truth that vii-tue should be the rule of 
conduct without reference to the rewards of the in- 
dividual agent, but likewise to proclaim the doctrine 
that there was no future state of rewards and pu- 
nishments. (See Buxtorf, s. v. pi*lV ; Lightfoot's 

Horae Hehraicae on Matth. iii. 8 ; and the Note 
of Maimonides in Surenhusius's Mishna, iv. p. 41 1.) 
]f, however, the statement is traced uj) to its ori- 
ginal source, it is found that there is no mention of 
it either in the Mishna, or in any other part of the 
Talmud (Geiger's Urschrift, &c., p. 105) and that 
the first mention of something of the kind is in a small 
work by a certain Itabbi Nathan, which he wrote on 


the Treatise of the Mishna called the Atoth, or " Fa- 
thers." But the age in which this Kabbi Nathan lived 
is uncertain (Bartolocci, Bibliothcca Magna Rahhi- 
nica, vol. iii. p. 770). and the earliest mention of him 
is in a well-known Piabbinical dictionary called the 
Aruch," which was completed about the year 1105, 
A.D. The following are the words of the above men- 
tioned Kabbi Nathan of the Avoth. Adverting to 
the passage in the Mishna, already quoted, respect- 
ing Antigonus's saying, he observes, " Antigonus 
of Socho had two disciples who taught the saying 
to their disciples, and these disciples again taught it 
to their disciples. At last these began to scrutinize 
it narrowly, and said, ' What did our Fathers mean 
in teaching this saying? Is it possible that a la- 
bourer is to perform his work all the day, and 
not receive his wages in the evening? Truly, if 
our Fathers had known that there is another world 
and a resurrection of the dead, they would not 
have spoken thus.' They then began to separate 
themselves from the law ; and so there arose two 
Sects, the Zadokites and Baithusians, the former 
from Zadok, and the latter from Baithos." Now 
it is to be observed on this passage that it does not 
justify the once current belief that Zadok himself 
misinterpreted Antigonus's saying; and it suggests 
no reason why the followers of the supposed new 
doctrines should have taken their name fiom Zadok 
urther than Antigonus. Bearing this in mind, in con- 
nexion with several other points of the s^me nature, 
such as for example, the total silence respecting any 
such story in the works of Josephus or in the Talmud ; 
the absence of any other special information respect- 
ing even the existence of the supposed Zadok ; the 
improbable and childishly illogical reasons assigned 
for the departure of Zadok's disciples from the l,aw ; 
the circumstance that Rabbi Nathan held the tenets 
of the Pharisees, that the statements of a Pharisee 
respecting the Sadducees must always be received 
with a certain reserve, that Rabbi Nathan of the 
Avoth, for aught that has ever been proved to 
the contrary, may have lived as long as 1000 yeai-s 
after the first appearance of the Sadducees as a paity 
in Jewish history, and that he quotes no authority 
of any kind for his account of their origin, it seems 
reasonable to reject this Rabbi Nathan's nanation as 
unworthy of credit. Another ancient suggestion 
concerning'the origin of the name "Sadducees," is 
in Epiphanius (^Adversus Hacrcscs, i. 4), who states 
that the Sadducees called themselves by that name 
from " righteousness," the interpret^ion of the 
Hebrew word Zedek ; "and that there was likewise 
anciently a Zadok among the priests, but that they 
did not continue in the doctrines of their chief" 
But this statement is unsatisfactory in two respects : 
1st. It does not explain why, if the suggested ety- 
mology was coiTect, the name of the Sadducees was 
not Tsaddikim or Zaddikites, which would have 
been the regular Hebrew adjective for the " Just," 
or "Righteous;" and 2ndly. While it evidently 
implies that they once held the doctrines of an 
ancient priest, Zadok, who is even called their chief 
or master (firiffrdTris), it does not directly assert 
that there was any connexion between his name 
and theirs ; nor yet does it say that tiie coin- 
(•idence between the two names was accidental. 

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


Moreover, it does not give itiformation as to when 
Zadok lived, nor what were those doctrines of his 
which the Sadducees once held, but subsequently 
departed from. The uusatisfactoriness of Epipha- 
nius's statement is increased by its being coupled 
with an assertion that the Sadducees were a branch 
broken otF from Dositheus ; or in other words Schis- 
matics fioiii Dositheiis (ctTrdcTTracrjua uvTes a-rh 
Aocri6eov) ; for Dositheus was a heretic who lived 
about the time of Christ (Origen, contra Celsum, 
lib. i. c. 17 ; Clemens, Recognit. ii. 8 ; Photius, 
Bibliotli. c. XXX.), and thus, if Epiphanius was 
correct, the opinions characteristic of the Sadducees 
wereproductions of the Christian aera ; a supposition 
contrary to the express declaration of the Pharisee 
Josephus, and to a notorious fact of history, the 
connexion of Hyrcanus with the Sadducees inore than 
100 years before Christ. (See Josephus, Ant. xiii. 
9, §6, and xviii. 1, §'J, where observe the phrase e/c 
rov irdvv apxo.iov. . .). Hence Epiphanius's expla- 
nation of tlie origin of the word Sadducees must be 
rejected with that of Kabbi Nathan of the Avoth. 
In these circumstances, if recourse is had to con- 
jecture, the first point to be considered is whether the 
word is likely to have arisen from the meaning of 
" righteousness," or fiom the name of an individual. 
This must be decided in favour of the latter alter- 
native, inasmuch as the word Zadok never occurs in 
the Bible, except as a proper name ; and then we are 
led to inquire as to who the Zadok of the Sadducees 
is likely to have been. Now, according to the 
existing records of Jewish history, there was one 
Zadok of transcendent importance, and only one ; 
viz., the priest who acted such a prominent part at 
the time of David, and who declared in favour of 
Solomon, when Abiathar took the part of Adonijah 
as successor to the throne (1 K. i. 32-45). This 
Zadok was tenth in descent, according to the ge- 
nealogies, from the high-priest, Aaron ; and what- 
evei' may be the correct explanation of the state- 
ment in the 1st Book of Kings ii. 35, that Solomon 
put him in the room of Abiathar, although on 
previous occasions he had, when named with him, 
been always mentioned first (2 Sam. xv. 35, six. 
11; cf. viii. 17), his line of priests appears to 
have had decided pre-eminence in subsequent his- 
tory. Thus, when in 2 Chr. xxxi. 10 Hezekiah is 
represented as putting a question to the priests and 
Levites generally, the answer is attributed to Aza- 
riah, " the chief priest of the house of Zadok:" and 
in Ezekiel's prophetic vision of the future Temple, 
" the sons of Zadok," and "the priests the Levites 
of the seed of Zadok " are spoken of with peculiar 
honour, as those who kept the charge of the sanctuary 
of Jehovah, when the children of Israel went astray 
(Ez. xl. 46, xhi. 19, xliv. 15, xlviii. 11). Now, as 
the transition from the expression " sons of Zadok," 
and " priests of the seed of Zadok " to Zadokites 
is easy and obvious, and as in the Acts of_'the 
Apostles V. 17, it is said, " Tken the high-priest 
rose, and all they that were with him, which is the 
sect of the Sadducees, and were filled with indigna- 
tion," it has been conjectured by Geiger that the 
Sadducees or Zadokites were originally identical 
with the sons of Zadok, and constituted what may 
be termed a kind of sacerdotal aristocracy ( Urschrift 
&c., p. 104). To these were afterwards attached 
all who for anv reason reckoned themselves as 



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

belonging to the aristocracy ; such, for example, 
as the families of the high-priest ; who had ob- 
tained consideration under tlie dynasty of Herod. 
These were for the most part judges,*" and indi- 
viduals of the official and governing class. Mow, 
although this view of the Sadducees is only 
inferential, and mainly conjectural, it certainly 
explains the name better than any other, and elu- 
cidates at once in the Acts of the Apostles the 
otherwise obscure statement that the high-priest, 
and those who were with him, were the sect of the 
Sadducees. Accepting, therefore, this view till a 
more probable conjecture is suggested, some of the 
principal peculiarities, or supposed peculiarities of 
the Sadducees will now be noticed in detail, although 
in such notice some points must be touched upon, 
which have been already partly discussed in speak- 
ing of the Pharisees. 

I. The leading tenet of the Sadducees was the 
negation of the leading tenet of their opponents. 
As the Pharisees asserted, so the Sadducees denied, 
that the Israelites were in possession of an Oral 
Law transmitted to them by Moses. The manner 
in which the Pharisees may have gained acceptance 
for their own view is noticed elsewhere in this 
work [vol. ii. p. 887] ; but, for an equitable esti- 
mate of the Sadducees, it is proper to bear in mind 
emphatically how destitute of historical evidence 
the doctrine was which they denied. That doctrine 
is at the present day rejected, probably by almost all, 
if not by all. Christians ; and it is mdeed so foreign 
to their ideas, that the greater number of Christians 
have never even heard of it, though it is older than 
Christianity, and has been the support and conso- 
lation of the Jews under a series of the most cruel 
and wicked persecutions to which any nation has 
ever been exposed during an equal number of cen- 
turies. It is likewise now maintained, all over the 
world, by those who are called the orthodox Jews. 
It is therefore desirable, to know the kind of argu- 
ments by which at the present day, in an historical 
and critical age, the doctrine is defended. For this 
an opportunity has been given during the last three 
years by a learned French Jew, Grand-Kabbi of the 
circumscription of Colmar (Klein, Le Judaisine, on 
la V^ritesur le Talmud, Mulhouse, 1859), who still 
asserts as a fact, the existence of a Mosaic Oral Law. 
To do full justice to his views, the original work 
should be perused. But it is doing no injustice to 
his learning and ability, to point out that not one 
of his arguments has a positive historical value. 
Thus he relies mainly on the inconceivabihty (as 
will be again noticed in this article) that a Divine 
revelation should not have explicitly proclaimed 
the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punish- 
ments, or that it should have promulgated laws, 
left in such an incomplete form, and requiring so 
much explanation, and so many additions, as the 
laws in the Pentateuch. Now, arguments of this 
kind may be sound or unsound ; based on reason, 
or illogical ; and for many they may have a philo- 
sophical or theological- value ; but they have no 
pretence to be regarded as historical, inasmuch as 
the assumed premisses, wliich involve a knowledge 
of the attributes of the Supreme Being, and the 
manner in which He would be likely to deal with 
man, are far beyond the limits of historical verifica- 
tion. The nearest approach to an historical argument 

daughters might marry priests. This again tallies with 
the explanation offered in the text, of the Sadducees, as a 
sacerdotal aristocracy, l)eing " with the high-priest." 



is the following (p. 10) : " In the first place, nothing 
proves better the fact of the existence of the tra- 
dition than the belief itself in the tradition. An 
entire nation does not suddenly forget its religious 
code, its principles, its laws, the daily ceremonies of 
its worship, to such a point, that it could easily be 
persuaded that a new docti-ine presented by some 
impostore IS the true and only explanation of its 
law, and has always determined and ruled its appli- 
cation. Holy Writ often represents the Israelites 
as a stirt-necked people, impatient of the religious 
yoke, and would it not be attributing to them ra- 
ther an excess of docility, a too great condescension, 
a blind obedience, to suppose that they suddenly 
consented to troublesome and rigorous innovations 
which some persons might have wished to impose 
on them some fine moi'ning? Such a supposition 
destroys itself, and we are obliged to acknowledge 
that the tradition is not a new invention, but that 
its birth goes back to the origin of the religion ; and 
that transmitted fi-om father to son as the word of 
(jod, it lived in the heart of the people, identiried 
itself with the blood, and w£is always considered as 
an inviolable authority." But if this passage is 
carefully examined, it will be seen that it does not 
supply a single fact worthy of being regarded as a 
proof of a Mosaic Oral Law. Independent testi- 
mony of persons contemporary with Bloses that he 
had transmitted such a law to the Israelites would 
be historical evidence ; the testimony of persons in 
the next generation as to the existence of such an 
Oral Law which their fathers told them came from 
Moses, would have been secondary historical evi- 
dence ; but the belief of the Israelites on the point 
1200 years after Moses, cannot, in the absence of 
any intermediate testimony, be deemed evidence of 
an historical fact. Moreover, it is a mistake to 
assume, that tliey who deny a Mosaic Oral Law, 
imagine that this Oral Law was at some one time, 
as one great system, introduced suddenly amongst 
the Israelites. The real mode of conceiving what 
occurred is far different. After the return from the 
Captivity, there existed probably amongst the Jews 
a large body of customs and decisions not contained 
in the Pentateuch ; and these had practical authority 
over the people long before they were attributed to 
Moses. 'I'he only phenomenon of importance requiring 
explamition is not the existence of the customs sanc- 
tioned by the Oral Law, but the belief accepted by 
a cert<iin portion of the Jews that Moses had divinely 
revealed those customs as laws to the Israelites. 
To explain this historically from written records 
is imjjossible, from the silence on the subject of the 
very scanty historical Jewish writings purporting to 
be written between the return from the Captivity in 
538 before Christ and that uncertain period when 
the canon was closed, which at the earliest could 
not have been long befoie the death of Antiochus 
Kpiplianes, B.C. 16!. For all this space of time, 
a period of about 374 years, a periotl as long as 
from the accession of Henry VII. to the present 
year (1862) we have no Hebrew account, nor in 
fact any contemporary account, of the history of the 
Jews in Palestine, except what may be contained in 
the short works entitled Ezra and iSehemiah. And 
the last named of these works does not carry the 

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


history much later than one hundred years after the 
return from the Captivity : so that there is a long and 
extremely important period of more than two cen- 
turies and a half befoie the heroic risinji of the 
JIaccabees, during which there is a tofcil absence of 
contemporary Jewish history. In this dearth of 
historical materials, it is idle to attempt a positive 
narration of the circumstances under which the Oral 
Law became assigned to Moses a-s its author. It is 
amply sufficient if a satisfactory suggestion is made 
as to how it might have been attributed to Moses, 
and in this there is not much difficulty for any one 
who bears in mind how notoriously in ancient times 
laws of a much later date were attributed to Jlinos, 
Lycurgus, Solon, and Numa. The unreasonableness 
of supposing that the belief in the Oral traditions 
being from Moses must have coincided in point of 
time with the acceptance of the Oral tradition, may 
be illustrated by what occurred in England during 
the present century. During a period when the 
fitness of maintaining the clergy by tithes was 
contested, the theory was put forth that the origin 
of tithes was to be assigned to " an unrecorded rex-e- 
lation made to Adam."^' Now, let us suppose that 
England was a country as small as Judaea ; that tlie 
English were as few in number as the Jews of 
Judaeji must have been in the time of Xehemiah, 
that a temple in London was the centre of the English 
religion, and that the population of London hardly 
ever reached 50,000. [Jehosalem, p. lo25.] Let 
us further suppose that printing was not invented, 
that manuscripts were dear, and that few of the 
population could read. Under such circumstances 
it is not impossible that the assertion of an unre- 
corded revelation made to Adam, might have been 
gradually accepted by a large religious party in 
England as a divine authority for tithes. If this 
belief had continued in the same party during a 
period of more than 2000 years, if that party had 
become dominant in the English Church, if for 
the first 250 years every contemporary record of 
English history became lost to mankind, and if all 
previous English writings merely condemned the 
belief by their silence, so that the precise date of 
the origin of the belief could not be ascertained, we 
should have a parallel to the way in which a belief 
in a Mosaic Oral Law may possibly have arisen. Yet 
it would have been very illogical for an English 
reasoner in the year 40u0 a. d. to have argued 
from the burden and annoyance of paying tithes to 
the correctness of the theory that the institution of 
tithes was owing to this unrecorded revelation to 
Adam. It is not meant by this illustration to 
suggest that reasons as specious could be advanced 
for such a divine origin of tithes as even for a Mosaic 
Oral Law. The main object of the illustration is to 
show that the existence of a practice, and the belief 
as to the origin of a practice, are two wholly distinct 
points ; and that there is no necessary connexion in 
time between the introduction of a practice, and the 
introduction of the prevalent belief in its origin. 

Under this head we may actd that it must not be 
assumed that the Sadducees, because they rejected 
a Mosaic Oral Law, rejected likewise all traditions 
and all decisions in explanation of passages in the 
Pentateuch. Although they ])rotested against the 

Nor does there remain any other method of solving it, but 
by assigning the origin of the custom, and the peculiar 
observance of it, to some unrecorded revelation made to 
Adam, and by him and his descendants delivered down to 


assertion that such points had been divinely settled 
by Moses, they probably, in numerous instances, 
followed practically the same ti'aditious as the Pha- 
risees. This will explain why in the Mishua spe- 
citic points of diilerencu between the Pharisees and 
Sadduceesare mentioned, which are so unimportant ; 
such, e. g. as whether touching the Holy Scrip- 
tures made the hands technically " unclean," in the 
Levitical sense, and whether the stream which flows 
when water is poured from a clean vessel into an un- 
clean one is itself technirally " clean " or " unclean " 
( Vadaim, iv. 6, 7). If the Pharisees and Sadducees 
had difiei-ed on all matters not directly contained in 
the Pentateuch, it would scarcely have been neces- 
sary to particularize points of difference such as 
these, which to Christians imbued with the ge- 
nuine spirit of Christ's teaching (Matt, xv, 11; 
Luke xi. 37-40), must appear so trifling, as 
almost to resemble the products of a diseased ima- 
gination ."* 

II. The second distinguishing doctrine of the Sad- 
ducees, the denial of man's resurrection after death, 
followed in their conceptions as a logical conclusion 
from their denial that Moses had revealed to the 
Israelites the Oral Law. For on a point so mo- 
mentous as a second life beyond the grave, no 
religious party among the Jews would have deemed 
themselves bound to accept any doctrine as an 
article of faith, unless it had been proclaimed by 
Moses, their great legislator ; and it is certain that 
in the written Law of the Pentateuch there is a 
total absence of any assertion by Moses of the resur- 
rection of the dead. The absence of this doctrine, 
so tar as it involves a future state of rewards and 
punishments, is emphatically manifest from the 
numerous occasions for its introduction in the Pen- 
tateuch, among the promises and threats, the bless- 
ings and curses, with which a portion of that gi'eat 
work aboiuids. In the Law Moses is represented 
as promising to those who are obedient to the com- 
mands of Jehovah the most alluring temporal re- 
wards, such as success in business, the acquisition 
of wealth, fruitful seasons, victory over their 
enemies, long Hfe, and freedom from sickness (Deut. 
vii. 12-15, xxviii. 1-12 ; Ex. xx. 12, xxi'ii. 25, 26) ; 
and he likewise menaces the disobedient with the 
most dreadful evils which can afflict humanity, 
with poverty, fell diseases, disastrous and disgrace- 
ful defeats, subjugation, dispersion, oppression, and 
overpowering anguish of heart (Deut. xxviii. 15- 
68) : but in not a single instance does he call to his 
aid the consolations and terrors of rewards and 
punishments hereafter. Moreover, even in a moi'e 
restricted indefinite sense, such as might be in- 
volved in the transmigration of souls, or in the 
immortivlity of the soul as believed in by Plato, 
and apparently by Cicero,^ there is a similar absence 
of any assertion by Moses of a resurrection of the 
dead: This fact is presented to Christians in a 
stiiking manner by the well-known words of the 
Pentateuch which are quoted by Christ in argu- 
ment with the Sadducees on this subject (Ex. iii. 
6, 16 : Mark xii. 26, 27 ; Matt. xxii. 31, 32 ; Luke 



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

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

XX. 37). It cannot be doubted that in such a case 
Christ would quote to his povvferful adversaries the 
most cogent text in the Law ; and yet the text 
actually quoted does not do more than suggest an 
inference on this great doctrine. Indeed it must 
be deemed probable that the Sadducees, as they diil 
not aclaiowledge the divine authority of Christ, 
denied even the logical validity of the inference, 
and argued that the expression that Jehovah was 
the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the 
God of Jacob, did not necessarily mean more than 
that Jehovah had been the God of those patriarchs 
while they lived on earth, without conveying a 
suggestion, one way or another, as to whether they 
^vere or were not still living elsewhere. It is true 
that in other parts of the Old Testament there are 
individual passages which express a belief in a 
resurrection, such as in Is. xxvi. 19, Dan. xii. 2, 
Jobxix. 26, and in some of the Psalms; and it may 
at first sight be a subject of surprise that the Sad- 
ducees were not convinced by the authority of those 
passages. But although the Sadducees regarded the 
books which contained these passages as sacred, it 
is more than doubtful whether any of the Jews 
regarded them as sacred in precisely the same sense 
as the written Law. There is a danger here of con- 
founding the ideas which are now common amongst 
Christians, who regard the whole ceremonial law 
as abrogated, with the ideas of Jews after the time 
of Ezra, while the Temple was still standing, or 
even with the ideas of orthodox modern Jews. To 
the Jews Moses was and is a colossal Form, pie- 
eminent in authority above all subsequent prophets. 
Not only did his series of signs and wonders in 
Egypt and at the Red Sea transcend in magnitude 
and brilliancy those of any other holy men in the 
Old Testament, not only was he the centre in 
Mount Sinai of the whole legislation of the Israel- 
ites, but even the mode by which divine communi- 
cations were made to him from Jehovah was 
peculiar to him alone. While others wei-e ad- 
dressed in visions or in dreams, the Supreme Being 
communicated with him alone mouth to mouth and 
face to face (Num. xii. 6, 7, 8 ; Ex. xxxiii. 11 ; 
Deut. V. 4-, xxxiv. 10-12). Hence scarcely any Jew 
would have deemed himself boimd to believe in 
man's resurrection, unless the doctrine had been 
proclaimed by Moses ; and as the Sadducees dis- 
believed the transmission of any Oral Law by Moses, 
the striking absence of that doctrine from the written 
law freed them from the necessity of accejiting the 
doctrine as divine. It is not meant by this to deny 
that Jewish believers in the resurrection had their 
faith strengthened and confirmed by allusions to a 
resurrection in scattered passages of the other sacred 
writings ; but then these passages were read and 
interpreted by means of the central light which 
streamed from the Oral Law. The Sadducees, how- 
ever, not making use of that light, would have 
deemed all such passages inconclusive, as being, 
indeed, the utterances of holy men, yet opposed to 
other texts which had equal claims to be pro- 
nounced sacred, but which could scarcely be sui>- 

dialogue, may perhaps be accepted as expressing his phi- 
losophical opinions respecting the immortality of the soul. 
He had held, however, very different language in hia 
oration pro Cluentio, cap. Ixi., in a passage which is a 
striking proof of the popular belief at Rome in his time. 
See also Sallust, Uatilin. li. ; Juvenal, ii. 149 ; and Pliny 
the Elder vii. 56. 



posed to have been written hj men who believed in 
a resunection (Is. xxxviii. 18, 19; Ps. vi. 5, xxx. 
9, kxsviii. 10, 11, 12 ; Eccles. is. 4-10). The real 
truth seems to be that, as in Christianity the doc- 
trine of the resurrection of man rests on belief in 
the resurrection of Jesus, with subsidiary arguments 
drawn from tests in the Old Testament, and from 
man's instincts, aspirations, and moral nature ; so, 
admitting fially the s;une subsidiary arguments, the 
doctrine of the resurrection among Pharisees, and 
the successive generations of orthodox Jews, and 
the orthodox Jews now living, has rested, and rests, 
on a belief in the supposed Oral Law of Moses. On 
this point the statement of the learned Grand-Rabbi 
to whom allusion has been already made deserves 
particular attention. " What causes most sur- 
prise in perusing the Pentateuch is the silence 
which it seems to keep respecting the most funda- 
mental and the most consoling truths. The doc- 
trines of the immortality of the soul, and of retri- 
bution beyond the tomb, are able powerfully to 
foilify man against the violence of the passions and 
the seductive attractions of vice, and to strengthen 
his steps in the rugged path of virtue : of them- 
selves they smooth all the difficulties which are 
raised, all the objections which are made, against 
the government of a Divine Providence, and account 
for the good fortune of the wicked and the bad 
fortune of the just. But man searches in vain for 
these truths, which he desires so ardently ; he in 
vain devours with avidity each page of Holy Wiit; 
he does not find either them, or the simple doctrine 
of the resurrection of the dead, explicitly announced. 
Nevertheless truths so consoling and of such an 
elevated order cannot have heen passed over in 
silence, and certainly God has not rehed on the 
mere sagacity of the human mind in order to an- 
nounce them only implicitly. He has transmitted 
them verbally, with the means of finding them in 
the text. A supplementary tradition was neces- 
sary, indispensable: this tradition exists. Moses 
received the Law from Sinai, transmitted it to 
Joshua, Joshua to the elders, the elders trans- 
mitted it to the prophets, and the p)rophets to the 
men of the great synagogue" (Klein, Le Judaisme 
ou la Verite sur le Talmud, p. 15). 

In connexion with the disbelief of a resurrection 
by the Sadducees, it is proper to notice the state- 
ment (Acts xxiii. 8) that they likewise denied there 
was " angel or spirit." A perplexity arises as to 
the jMccise sense in which this denial is to be 
understood. Angels are so distinctly mentioned in 
the Pent;iteuch and other books of the Old Testa- 
ment, that it is hard to understand how those who 
acknowledged the Old Testament to have divine 
authority «ould deny the existence of angels (see 
Gen. xvi. 7, xix. 1, xxii. 11, xxviii. 12 ; Ex. xxiii. 
20; Num. xxii. 23 ; Judg. xiii. 18 ; 2 Sam. xxiv. 
16, and other passages). The difficulty is increased 
by the iiict that no such denial of angels is recorded 
of the Sadducees either by Josephus, or in the 
Mishua, or, it is said, in any part of the Talmudical 
writings. The two jiriucipal explanations which 
have been suggested are, either that the Sadducees 
regarded the angels of tlie Old Testament ;is tran- 
sitory unsubstantial represeufcrtions of Jehovah, or 
that they disbelieved, not the angels of tiie Old 
Testament, but merely the angelicil system which 
had become developed in the popular belief of 
tlie Jews after their return from the Babylonian 
Captivity (Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 


iii. 364). Either of these explanations may pos- 
sibly be correct; and the first, although there 
are numerous texts to which it did not apply, 
would have received some coimtenance from pas- 
sages wherein the same divine appeai-ance which at 
one time is called the " angel of Jehovah " is after- 
wards called simply "Jehovah" fsee the instances 
pointed out by Gesenius, s. v. ^NPJO, Gen. xvi. 7, 
13, xxii. 11, 12, xxxi. 11, 16 ; Ex.' iii. 2, 4; Judg. 
vi. 14, 22, xiii. 18, 22). Perhaps, however, an- 
other suggestion is admissible. It appears from 
Acts xxiii. 9, that some of the scribes on the side 
of the Phai-isees suggested the possibility of a spirit 
or an angel having spoken to St. Paul, on the very 
occasion when it is asserted that the Sadducees 
denied the existence of angel or spirit. Now the 
Sadducees may have disbelieved in the occuirence 
of any such phenomena in their own time, although 
they accepted all the statements respecting angels 
in the Old Testament ; and thus the key to the 
assertion in the Stli verse that the Sadducees denied 
"angel or spirit" would be found exclusively in 
the 9th verse. This view of the Sadducees may be 
illusti-ated by the present state of opinion among 
Christians, the great majority of whom do not in 
any way deny the existence of angels as recorded 
in the Bible, and yet they certainly disbelieve that 
angels speak, at the present day, even to the most 
virtuous and pious of mankind. 

III. The opinions of the Sadducees respecting the 
freedom of the will, and the way in which those 
opinions are treated by Josephus {Ant. xiii. 5, 
§9), have been noticed elsewhere [Pharisees, 
p. 895], and an explanation has been there sug- 
gested of the prominence gi\'en to a difteience in 
this respect between the Sadducees and the Phari- 
sees. It may be here added that possibly the great 
stress laid by the Sadducees on the freedom of the 
will may have had some connexion with their 
forming such a large portion of that class 
from whicli criminal judges were selected. Jewish 
philosophers in their study, althougli they knew 
that pimishments ai? an instrument of good were 
unavoidable, might indrJge in reflections that 
man seemed to be the creature of circumstances, 
and might regai'd with compassion the punishments 
inflicted on individuals whom a wiser moral train- 
ing and a more happily balanced nature might have 
made useful members of society. Those Jews who 
were almost exclusively religious teachers would 
natmally insist on the inability of man to do anv- 
thing good if God's Holy Spirit were taken away 
from him (Ps. li. 11, 12), and would enlarge on 
the perils which surrounded man fiom the tempti- 
tions of Satan and evil angels or spirits (1 Chr. xxi. 
1; Tob. iii. 17). But it is likely that the ten- 
dencies of the judicial class would be more practical 
and direct, and more strictly in accordance with 
the ideas of the Levitical prophet Ezekiel (xxxiii. 
11-19) in a well-known passage in which he gives 
the responsibility of bad actions, and seems to at- 
tribute the power of perlbrming good actions, exclu- 
sively to the individual agent. Hence the sentiment 
of the lines — 

" Our acts our Angels are, or good or ill. 
Our fatal sbadows tbat walk by us still," 

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


claim to be regarded as a correct exponent of 
Sadducean thought.' And yet perhaps, if writings 
were extant in which the Saddueees explained their 
own ideas, we might tind that they reconciled these 
principles, as we may be certain that Ezekiel did, 
with other passages apparently of a diH'erent import 
m the Old Testament, and that the line of de- 
marcation between them and the Pharisees was not, 
in theory, so very sharply marked as the itccount 
of Josephus would lead us to suppose. 

IV. Some of the early Christian wiiters, such as 
Epiphanius (ffacrcs. xiv.), Origen, and Jeiome (in 
their respective Commentaries on Matt. xxii. 31, 
32, 3.3) attribute to the Saddueees the rejection of 
all the Sacred Scriptures excejit the Pentateuch. 
Such rejection, if true, would undoubtedly constitute 
a most important additional diflerence between the 
Saddueees and Pharisees. The statement of these 
Christian writers is, however, now generally ad- 
mitted to have been founded on a misconception of 
the ti'uth, and probably to have arisen from a con- 
fusion of the Saddueees with the Samaritans. See 
Lightfoot's Horae Hehraicae on Matt. iii. 7 ; 
Herzfeld's GeschicMe des Volkes Israel, ii. 3G3. 
Josephus is wholly silent as to an antagonism on 
this point between the Saddueees and the Pha- 
lisees ; and it is absolutely inconceivable that on 
the three several occasions when he introduces 
an accMuit of the opinions of the two sects, he 
should have been silent respecting such an antagon- 
ism, if it had really existed {Ant. xiii. 5, §9, xviii. 
1, §3 ; B. J. ii. 8, §14). Again, the existence of 
such a momentous antagonism would be incompa- 
tible with the manner in which Jose]ihus speaks of 
John Hyrcanus, who was high-priest and king 
of Judaea thirty-one years, and who nevertheless, 
having been previously a Pharisee, became a Sad- 
ducee towards the close of his life. This Hyrcanus, 
who died about 106 B.C., had been so inveterately 
hostile to the Samaritans, that when about three 
years before his death, he took their city Samaria, 
he razed it to the ground ; and he is represented to 
have dug caverns in various parts of the soil in 
order to ^nk the surface to a level or slope, and 
then to have diverted sti'eams of water over it. in 
order to efikce marks of such a city having ever 
existed. If the Saddueees had come so near to the 
Samaritans as to reject the divine authority of all 
the books of the Old Testament, except the Pen- 
tateuch, it is very unlikely that Josephus, after 
mentioning the death of Hyrcanus, should have 
spoken of him as he does in the following manner: — 
" He was esteemed by God worthy of three of the 
greatest privileges, the goveinment of the nation, 
the dignity of the high priesthood, and prophecy. 
For God was with him, and enabled him to know 
future e\-ents." Indeed, it may be infen-ed from 
this passage that Josephus did not even deem it a 
matter of vifcd impoi tiuice whether a high-priest 
was a Sadducee or a Pharisee — a latitude of tolera- 
tion which we may be confident he would not have 
indulged in, if the divine authority of all the books 
of the Old Testament, except the Pentateuch, had 
been at stake. What probably had more influence 
than anything else in occasioning this misconception 
respecting the Saddueees, was the circumstance that 



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

VOL, ir. 

in arguing with them on the doctrine of a future life, 
Christ quoted from the Pentateuch only, although 
there are stronger texts in favour of the doctrine in 
some other books of the Old 'i'estament. But pro- 
bable reasons have been alieady assigned why Chiist 
in arguing on this subject with the Saddueees re- 
ferred only to the supposed o])inions of Moses rather 
than to isolated passages extracted from the produc- 
tions of any other sacred writer. 

V. In conclusion, it may be proper to notice a 
fact, which, while it accounts for misconceptions of 
early Christian writers respecting the Saddueees, is 
on other grounds well woithy to arrest the atten- 
tion. This fact is the rapid disappearance of the 
Saddueees from history after the first century, and 
the subsequent predominance among the Jews of 
the opinions of the Pharisees. Two circumstances, 
indirectly, but powerfully, contributed to produce 
this result: 1st. The state of the Jews atter the 
capture of Jerusalem by Titus ; and 2ndly. The 
gi-owth of the Christian religion. As to the first 
point it is difficult to over-estimate the consterna- 
tion and dismay which the destruction of Jerusalem 
occasioned in the minds of sincerely religious Jews. 
Their holy city was in ruins; their holy and beau- 
tiful Temple, the centre of their worship and their 
love, had been ruthlessly burnt to the ground, and 
not one stone of it was left upon another : theii- 
magnificent hopes, either of an ideal king who was 
to restore the empire of David, or of a Son of Man 
who was to appear to them in tlie clouds of heaven, 
seemed to them for a while like emptv dreams ; and 
the whole visible worlil was, to their imagination, 
black witli desolation and despair. In this their hour 
of darkness and anguish, they naturally turned to 
the consolations and hopes of a future state, and the 
doctrine of the Saddueees that there was nothing 
beyond the present life, woidd have appeared to 
them cold, heartless, and hateful. — Again, while they 
were sunk in the lowest depths of depression, a new 
religion which they despised as a heresy and a super- 
stition, of which one of their own nation was the 
object, and another the unrivalled missionary to the 
heathen, was gradually making its way among the 
subjects of their detested conquerors, the Komans. 
One of the causes of its success was undoubtedly the 
vivid belief in the resurrection of Jesus, and a con- 
sequent }'esurrection of all mankind, which was 
accepted by its heathen convei ts with a passionate 
earnestness, of which those who at the pi-esent day 
are familiar from infancy with the doctrine of the 
resunection of the dead can form only a faint idea. 
To attempt to check the progress of this new re- 
ligion among the Jews by an appeal to the tem- 
porary rewards and punishments of the Pentateuch, 
would have been as idle as an endeavour to 
check an explosive ]X)wer by ordinary mechanical 
restraints. Consciously, therefore, or unconsciously, 
many circumstances combined to induce the Jews, 
who were not Pharisees, but who j-esisted the 
new heresy, to rally round the standard of the 
Oral Law, and to assert that their holy legislator, 
Moses, had transmitted to his faithful people by 
word of mouth, although not in writing, the reve- 
lation of a future state of rewards and punishments. 
A great belief was thus built up on a great fiction ; 

" Man is his own Star ; and the sonl that can 
Render an honest and a perfect man, 
Commands all light, all iiilluence, all fate: 
Nothing to him falls early, or too late." 

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



early teaching and custom supplied the place of evi- 
dence ; faith in an imaginary tact produced results as 
striking as could have flowed from the tact itself; 
and the doctrine of a Jlosaic Oral Law, enshrining 
convictions and hopes deeply i-ooted in the human 
heart, has triumphed for nearly 1800 centuries in 
the ideas of the Jewish people. This doctrine, the 
pledge of eteiTial life to them, as the resurrection 
of Jesus to Christians, is still maintained by the 
majority of our Jewish contemporaries ; and it will 
probably continue to be the creed of millions long 
after the present generation of mankind has passed 
away from the earth.e [E. T.] 

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

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

SAFFRON (D3"13, carcom : Kp6Kos : crocus) 
is mentioned only in Cant. iv. 14 with other odorous 
substances, such as spikenard, calamus, cinnamon, 
&c. ; there is not the slightest doubt that " satiion" 
is the correct rendering of the Hebrew word ; the 
-Arabic Kurkum is similar to the Hebrew, and de- 
notes the Crocus sativus, or " saffron crocus." 
Saffron has from the earliest times been in high 
esteem as a perfume : " it was used," says Rosen- 
muller (Bib. Bot. p. 138), " for the same puiposes 
as the modern pot-pourri." Saffron was ^Iso used 
in seasoning dishes (Apii.'ius, p. 270), it entered 
into the composition of many spirituous extracts 
which retained the scent (see Beckmann's Hist, of In- 
vent, i. p. 17,5, where the whole subject is very fully 
discussed). The part of the plant which was used 
was the stigma, which was pulled out of the flower 
and then dried. Dr. Kovle says, that " some- 
times the stigmas are prepared by being submitted 
to pressure, and thus made into cake saffron, a 
form in which it is still imported from Persia into 
India." Hasselquist {Trav. p. 36) states that in 
certain places, as around Magnesia, large quantities 
of saflron are gathered and exported to different 
places in Asia and Europe. Kitto {Pliys. Hist, of 
Palest, p. 321) says that thfe SatHower (Cartha- 
mus tinctorius), a very dillerent plant from the 
crocus, is cultivated in Syria for the sake of the 
flowers which are used in dyeing, but the Karkoin 
no doubt denotes the Crocus sativus. The word 
saffron is derived from the Arabic Zafran, " yellow." 
This plant gives its name to Saffron- Walden, in 
Essex, where it is largely cultivated : it belongs to 
the Natural Order Iridaceae. [W. H.] 

SA'LA f2aAa : Sale). Salaii, or Shelah, the 
father of Eber (Luke iii. 35). 

SA'LAH (nbC' : S.aXi.: Sale). The son of Ar- 
phaxad and father of Eber (Gen. x. 24, xi. 12-14- 
Luke iii. 35). The name is significant of extension, 
the cognate verb being applied to the spreading out 
of the roots and branches of trees (Jer. xvii. 8 • 
Ez. xvii. ()). It thus seems to imply the historical 
fact of the gradual extension of a branch of the 
Semitic race from its oiiginal seat in Northern 
Assyiia towards the river Euphrates. A place with 
a similar name in Northern Mesopotamia is noticed 
by Syrian writers (Kuobel, in Gen. xi.); but we 

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


can hardly assume its identity with the Salah of 
the Bible. Ewald {Gesch. i. 354) and Von Bohlen 
(Introd. to Gen. ii. 205) regard the name as 
purely fictitious, the fonner explaining it as a son 
or offspring, the latter as the father of a race. 
That the name is significant does not prove it 
fictitious, and the conclusions drawn by these writers 
are unwarranted. [W. L. B.] 

SAL'AMIS (2aXa/iix: Salamis), a city at the 
east end of the island of Cyprus, and the first place 
visited b}' Paul and Barnabas, on the first missionary 
journey, after leaving the mainland at Seleucia. 
Two reasons why they took this course obviously 
suggest themselves, viz. the fact that Cyprus (and 
probably Salamis) was the native-place of Barnabas, 
and the geographical proximity of this end of the 
island to Autioch. But a further reason is indi- 
cated by a circumstance in the narrative (Acts xiii. 
5). Here alone, among all the Greek cities visited 
by St. Paul, we read expressly of " synagogues " in 
the plural. Hence we conclude that there were many 
Jews in Cyprus. And this is in harmony with 
what we read elsewhere. To say nothing of pos- 
sible mercantile relations in very early times [Chit- 
TiM ; Cyprus], Jewish residents in the island 
are mentioned during the period when the Seleu- 
cidae reigned at Antioch (1 Mace. xv. 23). In the 
reign of Augustus the Cyprian copper-mines were 
farmed to Herod the Great (Joseph. Ani. xvi. 4, 
§5), and this would probably attract many Hebrew 
families : to which we may add evidence to tlie 
same effect from Philo {Legat. ad Caium) at the 
very time of St. Paul's journey. And again at a 
later period, in the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian, 
we are informed of dreadful tumults here, caused 
by a vast multitude of Jews, in the course of which 
" the whole populous city of Salamis became a 
desert " (Milman's Hist, of the Jens, iii. Ill, 112). 
We may well believe that fi-om the Jews of Salamis 
came some of those early Cypriote Christians, wlio 
are so prominently mentioned in the account of the 
first spreading of the Gospel beyond Palestine (Acts 
xi. 19, 20), even before the first missionary expe- 
dition. Mnason (xxi. 16) might be one of them. 
Nor ought Mark to be forgotten here. He was at 
Salamis with Paul, and his own kinsman Barnabas; 
and again he was tlieie with the same kinsman after 
the misunderstanding with St. Paul and the separa- 
tion (.XV. 39). 

Salamis was not far from the modern Fama- 
gousta. It was situated near a river called the 
Pediaeus, on low ground, which is in fact a con- 
tinuation of the plain running up into the interior 
towards the place where Nicosia, the present capital 
of Cyprus, stands. We must notice in regard to 
Salamis that its harbour is spoken of by Greek 
writers as very good ; and that one of the ancient 
tables lays down a road between this city and 
Paphos, the next place which Paul and Bai-nabas 
visited on their journey. Salamis again has rather 
an eminent position in subsequent Christian history. 
Constantine or his successor rebuilt it, and called it 
Constantia ("Salamis, quae nunc Constantia di- 
citur," Hieronym. Philem.), and, while it had this 
name, Epiphanius was one of its bishops. 

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


Of the travellers who have visited and described I 
Salaniis, we must particularly mention Pococke 
{Desc. of the East, ii. 214) and Ross {Reisen nach 
Kos, Halikarnassos, Rliodos, und Cypern, 118-125). 
These travellers notice, in the neighbourhood of 
Salamis, a village named St. Sergius, which is 
doubtless a reminiscence of Sergius Paulus, and a 
large liyzantine church beaiing the name of St. 
Barnabas, and associated with a legend concerning 
the discovery of his relics. The legend will be 
found in Cedrenus (i. 618, ed. Bonn). [Barnabas ; 
Sergius Paulus.] ' [J. S. H.] 

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

SALA'THIEL (^X''r)^Nt^ : S.aKaQiitK : Sa- 
latldel: " I have asked God"»), son of Jechouias 
king of Judah, and father of Zorobabel, according 
to iVIatt. i. 12 ; but son of Neri, and father of 
Zorobabel, according to Luke iii. 27 ; while the 
genealogy in 1 Chr. iii. 17-19, leaves it doubtful 
whether he is the son of Assir or Jechonias, and 
makes Zorobabel his nephew. [Zerubbabel.] 
Upon the incontrovertible principle that no gene- 
alogy would assign to the ti-ue son and heir of a 
king any inferior and private parentage, whereas, 
on the contrary, the son of a private person would 
naturally be placed in the royal pedigree on his 
becoming the rightful heir to the throne ; we may 
assert, with the utmost confidence, that St. Luke 
gives us the true state of the case, when he informs 
us that Salathiel was the son of Neri, and a de- 
scendant of Nathan the son of David.** And from 
his insertion in the royal pedigi'ee, both in 1 Chr. 
and St. Matthew's gospel, after the childless 
Jechonias,^ we infer, with no less confidence, that, 
on the failure of Solomon's line, he was the next 
heir to the throne of David. The appearance of 
Salathiel in the two pedigrees, though one deduces 
the descent from Solomon and the other from 
Nathan, is thus perfectly simple, and, indeed, neces- 
sary ; whereas the notion of Salathiel being called 
Neri's son, as Yardley and others have thought, 
because he man-ied Neri's daughter, is palpably 
absurd on the supposition of his being the sou of 
Jechonias. On this last principle you might have 
not two but about a million different pedigrees 
between Jechonias and Christ ;•* and yet you have 
no rational account, why there should actually be 
more than one. It may therefore be considered as 
certain, that Salathiel was the sou of Neri, and the 
heir of Jechoniah. The question whether he was 
the father of Zerubbabel will be considered under 
that article.* Besides the passages already cited, 
Salathiel occurs in 1 Esdr. v. 5, 48, 56, vi. 2; 
2 Esdr. V. 16. 

As regards the orthography of the name, it has. 

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

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

<: " Of Jechonias God sware that he should die leaving 
no child behind him ; wherefore it were flat atheism to 
prate that he naturally became father to Salathiel. Though 
St. Luke had never left us Salathiel's family up to Nathan, 
whole brother to Solomon, to show that Salathiel was of I 
another family, God's oath should make us believe that, ' 
without any further record" (Broughton, ut sitpr.). j 


as noted above, two forms in Hebrew. The con- 
tracted form is peculiar to Haggai, who uses it 
three times out of five ; while in the first and last 
verse of his prophecy he uses the full form, which 
is also found in Ezr. iii. 2 ; Neh. xii. 1. The LXX. 
everywhere have 'S,a\a.9ir]\, while the A. V. has 
(probably with an eye to correspondence with Matt, 
and Luke) Salathiel in 1 Chr. iii. 17, but everywhere 
else in the 0. T. Shealtiel. [Genealogy of 
Jesus Christ; Jehoiachin.] [A. C. H.] 

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

Alex. EXx«> AffeAxa, 2«A.X" • Salecha, Salacha<. 
A city named in the early records of Israel as the 
extreme limit of Bashan (Deut. iii. 10 ; Josh. xiii. 
11) and of the tribe of Gad (1 Chr. v. 11). On 
another occasion the name seems to denote a district 
rather than a town (Josh. xii. 5). By Eusebius 
and Jerome it is merely mentioned, apparently 
without their having had any real knowledge of it. 

It is doubtless identical with the town oiSulkhad, 
which stands at the southern extremity of the Jebel 
Hauran, twenty miles S. of Kunaicat (the ancient 
Kenath), which was the southern outpost of the 
Lcja, the Argob of the Bible. Sulkhad is named 
by both the Christian and ]\Iahomedan historians of 
the middle ages (Will, of Tyre, xvi. 8, "Selcath ;" 
Abulfeda, in Schultens' Index geogr. " Sarchad"). 
It was visited by Burckhardt [Syria, Nov. 22, 
1810), Seetzen and others, and more recently by 
Porter, who describes it at some length {Five Years, 
ii. 176-1 16). Its identification with Salcah appears 
to be due to Gesenius (Burckhardt's Reisen, 5ij7). 

Immediately below Sulkhad commences the plain 
of the great Euphrates desert, which appears to 
stretch with hardly an' undulation from here to 
Basra on the Persian Gulf. The town is of consi- 
derable size, two to three miles in circumference, 
surrounding a castle on a lofty isolated hill, which 
rises 300 or 400 feet above the rest of the place 
(Porter, 178, 179). One of the gateways of the 
castle bears an inscription containing the date of 
A.D. 246 (180). A still earlier date, viz. a.d. 196 
(Septimius Severus), is found on a giave-stone 
(185). Other scanty particulars of its later history 
will be found in Porter. The hill on which the 
castle stands was probably at one time a ciater, and 
its sides are still covered with volcanic cinder and 
blocks of lava. [G.] 

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

only. The Targum Pseiidojon. gives it X'^pllT'D, 
i. e. Selucia ; though which Seleucia they can have 
supposed was here intended it is difficult to 
imagine. [G.] 

d See a curious calculation in Blackstone's Coniment. 
ii. 203, that in the 20th degree of ancestry every mau has 
above a million of ancestors, and in the 40th upwards of a 
million millions. ■ 

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

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

4 A 2 

1092 SALEM 

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

1. The place ofwliich Melcliize<iek was king (Oeii. 
xiv. 18 ; Heb. vii. 1,2). No satisfactory identifica- 
tion of it is perhaps possible. The indications of the 
narrative are not sulHuient to give any clue to its 
])Ositiou. It is not oven safe to infer, as some have 
done," that it lay between Damascus and Sodom ; 
tor though it is said that the king of Sodom — who 
had probably regained his own city after the retreat 
of the Assyrians — went out to meet (HNliP?) ^ 
Abram, yet it is also distinctly stated that this was 
after Abram had returned ()2^^ "'"inX) from the 
slaughter of the kings. Indeed, it is not certain 
that there is any connexion of time or place between 
Abram's encounter with the king of Sodom and the 
appearance of Melchizedek. Nor, supposing this 
last doubt to be dispelled, is any chieattbrded by the 
mention of the Valley of Shaveh, since the situation 
even of that is moie than uncertain. 

Dr. Wolff'— no mean authority on Oriental ques- 
tions — in a striking passage in his last work, implies 
that Salem was — what the author of the Kpistle of 
the Hebrews understood it to be — a title, not the 
name of a place. "Melchizedek of old . . . had a 
royal title ; he was ' King of Righteousness,' in 
Hebrew Melchi-zcdek. And he was also ' King of 
Peace,' Melek-Salem. And when Abraham came 
to his tent he came forth with bread and wine, and 
was ciilled ' tlie Priest of the Highest,' and Abraham 
gave him a portion of his spoil. And just so Wolff's 
friend in the desert of Meru in the kingdom of 
Khiva . . . whose name is Abd-er-Rahman, which 
means 'Slave of the merciful God' . . . has also 
a royal title. He is called Shahe-Adaalat, ' King 
of Righteousness ' — the same as Melchizedek in 
Hebrew. And when he makes peace between kings 
he bears the title, Shahe Soolkh, ' King of Peace ' — 
in Hebrew Melek-Salem^ 

To revert, however, to the topographical ques- 
tion ; two main opinions have been current from 
the earliest ages of interpretation. 1. That of the 
Jewish commentators, who — from Onkc\o?,{Targum) 
and Josephus {B. J. vi. 10 ; Ant. i. 10, §2, vii. 3, 
§2) to Kalisch {Comm. on Gen. p. 360) — with one 
voice affirm that Salem is .Jerusalem, on the ground 
that Jerusalem is so called in Ps. Ixxvi. 2, the 
Psidmist, after the manner of poets, or from some 
exigency of his poem, making use of the archaic 
name in preference to that in common use. This 
is quite feasible ; but it is no argument for the 
identity of .Jerusalem with the Salem of Melchi- 
zedek. See this well put by Reland {ral. 833). 
The Ciiristians of the 4th century held the same 
belief with the Jews, as is evident from an expres- 
sion of Jerome (" nosU-i omnes," Ep. ad Evan- 
gelum, §7j. 

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

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

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

•^ Professor Stanley scorns to have been the first to call 
attention to this (.S'. ifc /'. 249). Sec EupoUmi Fragmenta, 
auctore G. A. Kuhlmey (Berlin, 1840) ; one of those excel- 
lent monographs which we owe to the German academical 
custom of demanding a treatise at each slop in hoijuurs. 


still to be seen. Elsewhere {Onom. "Salem") he 
loc<ates it more precisely at eight lioman miles fiom 
Scythopolis, and gives its then name as Salumias. 
Further, he identifies this Salem with the Salim 
(2aA.6(/i) of St. John the Baptist. That a Salem 
existed where St. Jerome thus places it there need 
be no doubt. Indeed, the name has been recovered 
at the identical distance below Beisan by Mr. Van 
de Velde, at a spot otherwise suitable for Aenon. 
But that this Salem, Salim, or Salumias was the 
Salem of Melchizedek, is as uncertain as that Jeru- 
salem was so. The ruins were probably as much 
the ruins of Melchizedek's palace as the remains at 
Eamet el-Khalil, three miles north of Hebron, are 
those of " Abraham's house." Nor is the decision 
assisted by a consideration of Abram's homeward 
route. He probably brought bad; his party by the 
road along the Ghor as far as Jericho, and then turn- 
ing to the right ascended to the upper level of the 
country in the direction of Mamre ; but whether he 
crossed the Jordan at the Jisr Benat Yakub above 
the Lake of Gennesaret, or at the Jisr Mejamia 
below it, he would equally pass by both Scythopolis 
and Jerusalem. At the same time it must be con- 
fessed that the distance of Salem (at least eighty 
miles from the probable position of Sodom) makes it 
difficult to suppose that the king of Sodom can have 
advanced so far to meet Abram, adds its weight to 
the statement that the meeting took place after 
Abram had returned — not during his return — and 
is thus so far in favour of Salem being Jerusalem. 

3. Professor Ewald {Geschichte, i. 410 note) 
pronounces that Salem is a town on the further 
side of Jordan, on the road from Damascus to 
Sodom, quoting at the same time John iii. 23, but 
the writer has in vain endeavoured to discover any 
authority for this, or any notice of the existence of 
the name in that direction either in former or 
recent times. 

4. A tradition given by Eupolemus, a writer 
knovvn only through fragments preserved in the 
Praeparatio Evangelica of Eusebius (ix. 17), differs 
in some important points from the Biblical account. 
According to this the meeting took place in the 
sanctuary of the city Argarizin, which is interpreted 
by Eupolemus to mean " the Mountain of the Most 
•^ High." Argarizin ^ is of course har Gerizzim, 
Mount Gerizim. The source of the tradition is, 
therefore, probably Samaritan, since the encounter 
of Abram and Melchizedek is one of the events to 
which the Samaritans lay claim for Mount Gerizim. 
But it may also proceed from the identification of 
Salem with Shechem, which lying at the foot of 
Gerizim wouJd easily be confounded with the moun- 
tain itself. [See Shalem.] 

5. A Salem is mentioned in Judith iv. 4, among 
the places which were seized and fortified by the 
Jews on the approach of Holofernes. " The valley 
of Salem," as it appears in the A. V. (Thv av\S>t>a 
SaXiijjU.), is possibly, as Reland has ingeniously sug- 
gested {Pal. " Salem," p. 977), a corruption of tls 
avKwva ds 'S.aKTjfi — " into the plain to Salem." 
If AiiAoii' is here, according to frequent usage, the 
Jordan ' valley, then the Salem referred to must 

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

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


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

2. {a}^ ■ if eip'fivi^ ■ in paces), Ps. Ixxvi. 2. 
It seems to be agreed on all hands that Salem is 
here employed for Jerusalem, but whether as a mei'e 
abbreviation to suit some exigency of the poetry, 
and point the allusion to the peace (salem) which 
the city enjoyed through the protection of God, or 
whether, after a well-known liabit of poets,'' it is 
an antique name preferred to the more modern and 
familiar one, is a question not yet decided. The 
latter is the opinion of the Jewish commentators, 
but it is grounded on their belief that the Salem of 
Melchizedek was the city which afterwards became 
Jerusalem. Tliis is to beg the question. See a re- 
markable passage in Geiger's Urschrift, &c., 74-6. 

The antithesis in verse 1 betweeen " Judah " and 
" Israel," would seem to imply that some sacred 
place in the northern kingdom is being contrasted 
with Zion, the sanctuary of the south. And if there 
were in the Bible any sanction to the identification 
of Salem with Shechem (noticed above), tlie passage 
might be taken as referring to the continued rela- 
tion of God to the kingdom of Israel. But theie 
ai-e no materials even for a conjecture on the point. 
Zion the sanctuary, however, being named in the 
one member of the verse, it is tolerably certain that 
Salem, if Jerusalem, must denote the secular part 
of the city — a distinction which has been already 
noticed [vol. i. 1020] as frequently occumng and 
imphed in the Psalms and Prophecies. [G.] 

SA'LIM (2aX€iV ; Alex. SaWei/x : Salim). 
A place named (John iii. 23) to denote the situation 
of Aenon, the scene of St. John's last baptisms — Salim 
being the well-known town or spot, and Aenon a 
place of fountains, or other water, near it. 'I'here 
is no statement in the narrative itself fxing the 
situation of Salim, and the only direct testimony 
we possess is that of Eusebius and Jerome, who 
both affirm unhesitatingly [Onom. "Aenon") that 
it existed in their day near the Jordan, eight Ro- 
man miles south of Scythopolis. Jerome adds 
(under " Salem") that its name was then Salumias. 
Elsewhere (Ep. ad Evangelum, §7, 8) he states 



f The writer could not succeed (in 1861) in eliciting 
this name for any part of the plain. The name, given in 
answer to repeated questions, for the Eastern branch or 
leg of the Mukhna was always Wady Sajiia. 

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

that it was iiientical with tiir Salem of Melchi- 

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

1. Some (as Altbrd, Greek Test, ad loc.) propose 
Shilhim and AiN, in the arid country far in the 
south of Judaea, entirely out of the circle of asso- 
ciations of St. John or our Lord. Others identify 
it with the SiiALiM of 1 Sam. ix. 4, Imt this latter 
place is itself unknown, and the name in Hebrew 
contains J?, to corresjiond with which the name in 
St. John should be 2e7aA6iju or 2aa\e(;u. 

2. Dr. Kobinson suggests the modern village of 
Salim, three miles E. of Nahlus {B. R. iii. 333), 
but this is no less out of the circle of St. John's 
ministrations, and is too near the Samai'itans ; and 
although there is some reason to believe that the 
village contains " two sources of living water " 
{ih. 298), yet this is hardly sufficient for the 
abundance of deep water implied in the naiTative. 
A writer in the Colonial Ch. Chron., No. cxxvi. 
464, who concurs in this opinion of Dr. Robinson, 
was told of a village an hour east (?) of Salim 
" named Ain-un, with a copious stream of water." 
The district east of Salim is a blank in the maps. 
Yamin lies about IJ hour S.E. of Salim, but thi* 
can hardly be the place intended ; and iu th 
description of Van de Velde, who visited it (ii. 303] 
no stream or spring is mentioned. 

3. Dr. Barclay {City, &c., 564) is filled with an 
"assured conviction" that Salim is to be found in 
Wady Seleiin, and Aenon in the copious springs 
oi Ain Farah {ih. 559), among the deep and in- 
tricate ravines some five miles N.E. of Jerusalem. 
This certainly has the name in its flwoui', and, if 
the glowing description and pictorial woodcut of 
Dr. Barclay may be trusted — has water enough, 
and of sufficient depth for the purpose. 

4. The name of Salim has been lately discovei'ed 
by Mr. Van de Velde {Syr. ^ Pal. ii. 345, 6) in a 
position exactly in accordance with the notice of liu- 
scbius, viz. six English miles south of Beisan, and 
two miles west of the Jordan. On the northern base 
of Tell Redghah is a site of ruins, and near it a 
Mussulman tomb, which is called by the Arabs 
Sheykh Saliin (see also Memoir, 345). Dr. Robin- 
son (iii. 333) complains that the name is attached 
only to a Mussulman sanctuary, and also that no 
ruins of any extent ai'e to be found on the spot ; but 
with regard to the first objection, even Dr. Robinson 
does not dispute that the name is there, and that 
the locality is in the closest agieement with the 
notice of Eusebius. As to the second it is only ne- 
cessary to point to Kefr-Saha, where a town (An- 
tipatris), which so late as the time of the desti'uc- 
tion of Jerusalem was of gi'eat size and extensively 
fortified, has absolutely disappeared. The career of 
St. John has been examined in a former part of this 
work, and it has been shown with great probability • 
that his ])rogress was from south to north, and that 
the scene of his last baptisms was not far distant' 
from the spot indicated by Eusebius, and now re- 
covered by Mr. Van de Velde. [Jordan, vol. i. 
p. 1128.] Salim fulfils also the conditions implied 
in the name of Aenon (springs), and the direct 

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

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



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

A tradition is mentioned by Keland {Palaesiina, 
978) that Salim was the native place of Simon 
Zelotes. This in itself seems to imply that its po- 
sition was, at the date of the tradition, believed to 
be nearer to Galilee than to Judaea. [G.] 

SALLA'I (>?D, in pause ''7D: StjA^ Alex. 

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

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

SAL'LU (-Dp: 2aA.£Uyu, 27)A.c6; Alex. 2aA.d5 
in 1 Chr. : Salo, Sellum). 1. The son of Me- 
shullam, a Benjamite who returned and settled in 
Jerusalem after the captivity (1 Chr. ix. 7 ; Neh. 
si. 7). 

2. (Om. in Vat. MS.; Alex. 'SaXovd'i: Sellum.) 
The head of one of the courses of priests who 
returned with Zerubbabel (Neh. xii. 7). Called 
also Sallai. 

SALLU'MUS {'S,a\ov/iios ; Alex. :S.a\\odfios : 
Salumus). Shallum (1 Esd. ix. 25; comp. Kzr. 
X. 24). 

SAUMA, or SAL'MON (HD^b, No'pb, or 

pJOT'tJ' : 2aA.ju.ccv ; Alex. 2aAjua;/, but ^aXoifXiiu 

both MSS. in Ruth iv. : Salmon). Son of Nahshon, 
the prince of the children of Judah, and father of 
Boaz, the husband of Ruth. Salmon's age is dis- 
tinctly marked by that of his father Nahshon, and 
with this agrees the statement in 1 Chr. ii. 51, 54, 
that he was of the sons of Caleb, and the father, or 
head man of Bethlehem- Ephratah, a town which 
seems to have been within the territory of Caleb 
(1 Chr. ii. 50, 51). [Ephratah ; Bethlehem.] 
On the entrance of the Israelites into Canaan, 
Salmon took P.ahab of Jericho to be his wife, and 
from this union sprang the Christ. [Kahab.] 
From the circumstance of Salmon having lived at 
the time of the conquest of Cana;m, as well as from 
his being the first proprietor of Bethlehem, where 
his family continued so many centuries, perhaps till 
the reign of Domitian fEuseb. Eccles. Hist. ii. 20). 
he may be called the founder of the house of David. 
Besides Bethlehem, the Netophathites, the house of 
Joab, the Zorites, and several other families, looked 
to Salmon as their head (1 Chr. ii. 54, 55). 

Two circumstances connected with Salmon have 
• caused some perplexity. One, the variation in the 
orthography of his name. The other, an apparent 
variation in his genealogy. 

As regards the first, the variation in proper 

* Eusebius (Chron. Canon, lib. i. 22) has no misgiving 
as to the identity of Salma. 

I) See a work by Reuss, Der acht und seclizigste Psalm, 
ein Denlcmal exegetischer A'oth und Kunst, zu Ehren unsei- 
yaiizen Zunft, Jena, 1851. Iiidrpciidciitly of its m..iiy 
obscure allusions, the 68lh Psalm contains thirteen airaj 
Afyofiei'a, including y)^7\. It may be observed that 
this word is scarcely, as (Jesenius suggests, analogous to 
}^27in, D^nXn, HiphUs of colour; for tlicse words have 


names (whether caused by the fluctuations of 
copyists, or whether they existed in practice, and 
were favoured by the significance of the names), is 
so extremely common, that sitch slight differences 
as those in the three forms of this name are scarcely 
worth noticing. Compare e. g. the different forms 
of the name Shiinea, the son of Jesse, in 1 Sam. 
xvi. 9 ; 2 Sam. xiii. 3 ; 1 Chr. ii. 13 : or of Simon 
Peter, in Luke v. 4, &c. ; Acts xv. 14. See other 
examples in Hervey's Geneal. of our Lord, ch. vi. 
and X. j\Ioreover, in this case, the variation from 
Salma to Salmon takes place in two consecutive 
verses, viz., Ruth iv. 20, 21, where the notion of 
two different persons being meant, though in some 
degree sanctioned by the authority of Dr. Keunicott 
{Dissert, i. p. 184, 543), is not worth refuting." 
As regards the Salma of 1 Chr. ii. 51, 54, his con- 
nection with Bethlehem identities him with the son 
of Nahshon, and the change of the final H into N 
belongs doubtless to the late date of the Book of 
Chronicles. The name is so wi'itten also in 1 Chr. 
ii. 11. But the truth is that the sole reason for 
endeavouring to make two persons out of Salma and 
Salmon, is the wish to lengthen the line between 
Salma and David, in ordet to meet the false chro- 
nology of those times. 

The variation in Salma s genealogy, which has 
induced some to think that the Salma of 1 Chr. ii. 
51, 54 is a different person from the Salma of 
1 Chr. ii. 11, is more apparent than real. It arises 
from the circumstance that Bethlehem Ephratah, 
which was Salmon's inheritance, was part of the 
territory of Caleb, the grandson of Ephratah ; and 
this caused him to be reckoned among the sons of 
Caleb. But it is a complete misunderstanding of 
the language of such topographical genealogies to 
suppose that it is meant to be asserted that Salma 
was the literal son of Caleb. Mention is made of 
Salma only in Ruth iv. 20, 21 ; 1 Chr. ii. 11, 51, 
54 ; Matt. i. 4, 5 ; Luke iii. 32. The questions 
of his age and identity are discussed in the Geneal. 
of our Lord, ch. iv. and ix. ; Jackson, Chron. 
Antiq. i. 171; Hales, ^Ji((('ysw, iii. 44; Burring- 
ton, Geneal. i. 189; Dr. Mill, Vindic. of our Lord's 
Geneal. 123, &c. [A. C. H.] 

SALMANA'SAK {Salmanasar). Shalman- 
ESER, king of Assyria (2 Esd. xiii. 40). 

SAL'MON (liD^V : SeAiaajj/ : Salmon, Judg. 
ix. 48). The name of a hill near Shechem, on whii^h 
Abimelech and his followers cut down the boughs 
with which they set the tower of Shechem on fire. 
Its exact position is not known. , 

It is usually supposed that this hill is mentioned 
in a verse of perhaps the most diliicult of all the 
Psalms'- (Ps. Ixviii. 14); and this is probable, 
though the passage is peculiarly difficult, and the 
precise allusion intended by the poet seems hope- 
lessly lost. Commentators dilfer from each other ; 
and Viirst, within 176 pages of his Handworterbuch, 
differs from himself (see jjpti' and jlO'PV). Indeed, 

a signification of colour in Kal. The really analogous 
word is I'tSpn, "he makes it rain," which bears the 
same relation to 1130. " rain," which Jv^H l"''^'''* '° 
y>\^, " snow." Owing, probably, to Hebrew religious 
conceptions of natural phenomena, no instance occurs of 
T'PPn used as a neuter in the sense of " it rains;" 
though this would be grammatically admissible. 


of six distinguished modem commentators — De 
Wette, Hitziff, Ewald, Hengstenl)ei-g, Delitzsch, and 
Hupteld — no two give distinctly the same meaning; 
and Mr. Keble, in his admirable Version of the 
Psalms, gives a translation which, though poetical, 
as was to be expected, ditfers from any one of those 
suggested by those six scholars. This is not the 
place for an exhaustive examination of the passage. 
It may be mentioned, however, that the literal trans- 
lation of the words pO^V? ih^^} is " Thou 
makest it snow," or " It snows," with liberty to use 
the word either in the past or in the future tense. 
As notwithstanding ingenious attemjits, this supplies 
no satisfactory meaning, recourse is had to a trans- 
lation of doubtful validity, "Thou makest it white 
as snow," or " It is white as snow" — words to 
which various metaphorical meanings have been 
attributed. The allusion which, through the Lexi- 
con of Gesenius, is most generally received, is tliat 
the words refer to the ground being snow-white 
with bones after a defeat of the Canaanite kings ; 
and this may be accepted by those who will admit 
the scarcely permissible meaning, " white as snow," 
and who cannot rest satisfied without attaching 
.some definite signification to the passage. At the 
same time it is to be remembered that the figure 
is a verv harsh one ; and that it is not really 
justified by passages quoted in illustration of it 
from Latin classical writers, such as, " campique 
ingentes ossibus albent " (Virg. Aen. xii. 36), 
and " humanis ossibus albet humus " (Ovid, Fast. 
i. 558), for in these cases the word "bones" is 
actually used in the text, and is not left to be 
supplied by the imagination. Granted, however, 
that an allusion is made to bones of the slain, 
there is a divergence of opinion as to whether 
Salmon was mentioned simply because it had been 
the battle-ground in some great defeat of the Ca- 
naanitish kings, or whether it is only introduced as 
an image of snowy whiteness. And of these two 
explanations, the first would be on the whole most 
probable ; for Salmon cannot have been a very high 
mountain, as the highest mountains near Shechem 
;ue Ebal and Gerizim, and of these Ebal, the highest 
of the two, is only 1028 feet higher than the city 
(see Ekal, p. 470 ; and Robinson's Gesenius, 895 a). 
If the poet had desired to use the image of a snowy 
mountain, it would have been more naturalto select 
Heimon, which is visible from the eastern brow of 
Gerizim, is about 10,000 feet high, and is covered 
with perpetual snow. Still it is not meant that 
this circumstance by itself would be conclusive ; for 
there may have been particular associations in the 
mind of the poet, unknown to us, which led him to 
prefer Salmon. 

In despair of understanding the allusion to Salmon, 
some suppose that Salmon, i. e. Tsnlmon, is not a 
proper name in this passage, but merely signifies 
•' darkness ;" and this interpretation, supported by 
the Targum, though opposed to the Septuagint, has 
been adopted by Ewald, and in the first state- 
ment in his Lexicon is admitted by Fiirst. Since 
tselem signifies " shade," this is a bare etymo- 
logical possibility. But no such word as tsalinon 
occurs elsewhere in the Hebrew language ; while 
there are several other words for darkness, in 
diflerent degrees of meaning, such as the ordinary 
word choshek, ophel, aphelah, and 'araphel. 

Unless the passage is given up as corrupt, it 
seems more in accordance with reason to admit that 
there was some allusion present to the poet's mind. 



the key to which is now lost; and this ought not to 
surprise any scholar who reflects how many allu- 
sions there are in Greek poets — in Pindar, for ex- 
ample, and in Aristophanes — which would be wholly 
unintelligible to us now, were it not for the notes 
of Greek scholiasts. To these notes there is nothing 
exactly analogous in Hebrew literature; and in the 
absence of some such assistance, it is unavoidable 
that there should be several passages in the 0. T. 
respecting the meaning of which we must be content 
to remain ignorant. [E. T.] , 

SAL'MON the father of Boaz (Ruth iv. 20, 21 ; 
Matt. i. 4, 5; Luke iii. 32). [Salma.] 

SALMO'NE(2aX;Ucoi/»j: Salmone). The East 
point of the island of Crete. In the account of St. 
Paul's voyage to Rome this promontory is mentioned 
in such a way (Acts xxvii. 7) as to aUbrd a curious 
illustration both of the navigation of the ancients 
and of the minute accuracy of St. Luke's narrative. 
We gather from other circumstances of the voyage 
that the wind was blowing from the N.W. (eVaj/- 
Tiouy, ver. 4; ^paZvirXoovvris, ver. 7). [See 
Myra.] We are then told that the ship, on 
making Cnidus, could not, by reason of the wind, 
hold on her course, which was past the south point 
of Greece, W. by S. She did, however, just fetch 
Cape Salmone, which bears S.W. by S. iron) Cnidus. 
Now we may take it for granted that she could 
have made good a course of less than seven points 
from the wind [Ship] : and, starting from this 
assumption, we are at once brought to the conclu- 
sion that the wind must have been between N.N.W. 
and W.N.W. Thus what Paley would have called 
an " undesigned coincidence " is elicited by a cross- 
examination of the narrative. This ingenious argu- 
ment is due to Mr. Smith of .lordanhill ( Voy. and 
Shipwreck of St. Paul, pp. 73, 74, 2nd ed.), and 
from him it is quoted by Conybeare and Howson 
{Life and Epp. of St. Paul, ii. 393, 2nd ed.). To 
these books we must refer for fuller details. We may 
just add that the ship had had the advantages of a 
weather shore, smooth water, and a favouring cur- 
rent, before reaching Cnidus, and that by running 
down to Cape Salmone the sailors obtained similar 
advantages under the lee of Crete, as far as Fair 
Havkxs, near Lasaea. [J. S. H.] 

SA'LOM (2aAci;u: Salom). The Greek form 
1. of Shallum, the father of Hilkiah (Bar. i. 7). 
[SiiALLrii.] 2. (Salomus) of Salu the father of 
Zimri (1 Mace. ii. 26). [Salu.] 

SALO'ME {•S.aAii/j.n : Salome). 1. The wife of 
Zebedee, as appears from comparing Matt, xxvii. 
56 with Mark xv. 40. It is further the opinion of 
many modern critics that she was the sister of 
i\Iary, the mother of Jesus, to whom reference is 
made in John xix. 25. The words admit, however, 
of another and hitherto generally received explana- 
tion, according to which they refer to the " Mary 
the wife of Cleophas" immediately afterwards men- 
tioned. In behalf of the former view, it may be 
urged that it gets rid of the difficulty arising out 
of two sisters having the same name — that it har- 
monises John's nan-ative with those of Matthew 
and Mark — that this circuitous manner of describing 
his own mother is in character witli St. John's 
manner of describing himself^ — that the absence of 
any connecting link between the second and third 
designations may be accounted for on the ground 
that the four are arranged in two distinct couplets 
— and, lastly, that the I'eshito, the Persiim, and the 



Aethiopio vei-sions mark the distinction between the 
second and third by interpolating a conjunction. On 
the other hand, it may be urged that the dilliculty 
arising out of the name may be disposed of by 
assuming a double marriage on tlie part of the 
father — that there is no necessity to harmonise 
John with Matthew and Mark, for that the time 
and the place in which the groups are noticed differ 
materially — that the language addressed to John, 
" Behold thy mother ! " favours the idea of the 
gbsence rather than of the presence of his natural 
mother — and that the varying traditions* current in 
the early Church as to Salome's parents, worthless 
as they are in theinselves, yet bear a negative testi- 
mony against the idea of her being related to the 
mother of Jesus. Altogether we can hardly regard 
the point as settled, though the weight of modern 
•criticism is decidedly in favour of the foi-mer view 
(see Wieseler, Stud. u. Krit. 1840, p. 648). The 
only events recorded of .Salome aie that she pre- 
ferred a request on behalf of her two sons for seats 
of honour in the kingdom of heaven (Matt. xx. 20), 
that she attended at the crucifixion of Jesus (Mark 
XV. 40), and that she visited his sepulchre (Mark 
xvi. 1). She is mentioned by name only on the 
two latter occasions. 

2. The daughter of Herodias by her first hus- 
band, Herod Philip (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 5, §4). She 
is the "daughter of Herodias" noticed in Matt, 
xiv. 6 as dancing before Herod Antipas, and as pro- 
curing at her mother's instigation the death of John 
the Baptist. She married in the first place Philip 
the tetrarch of Trachonitis, her paternal uncle, and 
secondly Aristobulus, the kingof Chalcis. [W. L. B.] 

SALT(nT'D; aKs: sal). Indispensable as salt 

is to ourselves, it was even more so to the Hebrews, 
being to them not only ah appetizing condiment in 
the food both of man TJob vi. 6) and beast (Is. 
xxx. 24, see margin), and a most valuable antidote 
to the etiects of the he;it of the climate on animal 
food, but also entering largely into their religious 
services as an accompaniment to the various offer- 
ings presented on the altar (Lev. ii. 13). They 
possessed an inexhaustible and ready supply of it 
on the southern shores of the Dead Sea. Here may 
have been situated tlie Valley of Salt (2 Sam. viii. 
13), in proximity to the mountain of fossil salt 
which Robinson [Researches, ii. 108) describes as 
five miles in length, and as the chief source of the 
salt in the sea itself. Here were the saltpits (Zeph. 
ii. 9), probably formed in the mai'shes at the 
southern end of the lake, which are completely 
coated with salt, deposited periodically by the rising 
of the waters ; and here also were the successive 
pillars of salt which tradition has from time to 
time identified with Lot's wife (Wisd. x. 7 ; Jo- 
seph. Ant. i. 11, §4). [Sea, the Salt.] Salt 
might also be pi'ocured from the Mediterranean 
Sea, and finm this source the Phoenicians would 
naturally obtain the supply necessary for salting 
fish (Neh. xiii. IG) and for other purposes. The 
.lews appear to have distinguished between rock- 
salt and that which was gained by evaporation, as 
the Talmudists particularize one sjipcies (probably 
the latter) as the "salt of Sodom" (Carpzov, 
Appar. p. 718). The notion that this expression 
means bitumen rests on no foundation. The salt- 
pits formed an important source of revenue to the 

» According to one account she was the daughtor of 
.Joseph by a lomier marriage (lipiphan. y/aer. Ixxviii. S) : 


rulers of the country (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 4, §9), 
and Antiochus confeired a valuable boon on Jeru- 
salem by presenting the city with 375 bushels of 
salt for the Temple service (^Ant. xii. 3, §3). In 
atldition to the uses of salt already specified, the 
interior sorts were ajtplied as a manure to the soil, 
or to hasten the decomposition of dung (Matt. v. 
1 3 ; Luke xiv. 35). Too large an admixture, how- 
ever, was held to produce sterility, as exemplified 
on the shores of the Dead Sea (Deut. xxix. 23 ; 
Zeph. ii. 9) : hence a " salt" land was synonymous 
with barrenness (Job xxxix. 6, see margin ; ,Ter. 
xvii. C ; comp. Joseph. B. J. iv. 8, §2, aA/xvpciSris 
Koi &yovoi) ; and hence also arose the custom ot 
sowing with salt the foundations of a destroyed city 
(Juiig. ix. 45), as a token of its irretrievable ruin. 
It was the belief of the Jews that salt would, by 
exposure to the air, lose its virtue (/u-wpavdij, Matt. 
V. 13) and become saltless (^.i/aXov. Mark ix. 50). 
The same fact is implied in the expressions of Pliny, 
sal iners (xxxi. 39), sal tahescere (xxxi. 44) ; and 
Maundrell (Early Travels, p. 512, Bohn) asserts 
that he found the surface of a salt rock in this con- 
dition. The associations connected with salt in 
Eastern countries are important. As one of the 
most essential articles of diet, it symbolized hospi- 
tality ; as an antiseptic, durability, fidelity, and 
purity. Hence the expression, " covenant of salt " 
(Lev. ii. 13; Num. xviii. 19; 2 Chr. xiii. 5), as 
betokening an indissoluble alliance between friends ; 
and again the expression, " salted with the salt of 
the palace" (Ezr. iv. 14), not necessarily meaning 
that they had " maintenance fiom the palace," as 
the A. V. has it, but that they were bound by 
sacred obligations of fidelity to the king. So in the 
present day, " to eat bread and salt together " is 
an expression for a league of mutual amity (Russell, 
Aleppo, i. 232) ; and, on the other hand, the 
Persian teim for traitor is nemekharani, " faithless 
to salt" (Gesen. Thes. p. 790). It was probably 
with a view to keep this idea prominently before 
the minds of the Jews that the use of salt was en- 
joined on the Israelites in their offerings to God ; 
for in the first instance it was specifically ordered 
for the meat-offering (Lev. ii. 13), which consisted 
mainly of flour, and therefore was not liable to cor- 
ruption. The extension of its use to burnt sacri- 
fices was a later addition (Ez. xliii. 24; Joseph. 
Ant. iii. 9, §1), in the spirit of the general injunc- 
tion at the close of Lev. ii. 13. Similarly the 
heathens accompanied their sacrifices with salted 
barley-meal, the Greeks with their ovXoxvrat (Horn. 
II. i. 449), the Romans with their mola salsa (Hor. 
Sat. ii. 3, 200) or their salsae frugcs (Virg. Aen. 
ii. 133). It may of course be assumed that in all 
of these cases salt was added as a condiment ; but 
the strictness with which the rule was adhered to — 
no sacrifice being oHered without salt (Plin. xxxi. 
41), and still more the probable, though perhaps 
doubtful, admixture of it in incense (Ex. xxx. 35, 
where the word rendered "tempered together" is 
by some understood as " salted") — leads to the con- 
clusion that there was a symbolical force attached 
to its use. Our Lord refers to the sacrificial use 
of salt in Mark ix. 49, 50, though some of the other 
associations may also be implied. The purifying 
property of salt, as opposed to corruption, led to its 
selection as the outward sign in Elisha's miracle 
(2 K. ii. 20, 21), and is also developed in the N. T. 

according to another, the wife of Joseph (Niceph. //. E. 
ii. 3). 


(Matt. V. lo; Col. iv. 6). The custom of rubbing 
infants with salt (Ez. xvi. 4) originated in sani- 
tary considerations, but received also a symbolical 
meaning. [VV. L. B.] 

SALT, CITY OF (n^^nn^J? : at nSMis 
^aSSii' ; Alex, ai iroAts a\wv : civitas Salis). 
The fifth of the six cities of Judah which lay in the 
" wilderness" (Josh.xv. 62). Its proximity to En- 
gedi, and the name itself, seem to point to its being 
situated close to or at any rate in the neighbour- 
hood of the Salt-sea. Dr. Robinson {B. R. ii. lU9) 
expresses his belief that it lay somewhere near the 
plain at the south end of that lake, which he would 
identify with the Valley of ^alt. This, though 
possibly supported by the reading of the Vatican 
LXX., " the cities of Sodom," is at present a mere 
conjecture, since no trace of the name or the city has 
yet been discovered in that position. On the other 
hand, Mr. Van de Velde {Sijr. 4'- Pal. ii. 99, Memoir, 
111, and Map) mentions a Nahr Maleh which he 
passed in his I'oute from Wady el-Rmail to Sebbeh, 
the name of which (though the orthogi-aphy is not 
certain) may be found to contain a trace of the 
Hebrew. It is one of four ravines which unite to 
foi-m the Wady el Bedun. Another of the four, W. 
'Amreh {Syr. <|- P. ii. 99 ; Memoir, 111, Map), recals 
the name of Gomorrah, to the Hebrew of which it 
is very similar. [G.] 

SALT, VALLEY OF (H^D X'*;), but twice 
with the article, Pl'piSn 'il : TefieAf/x, Te/xeAeS, 
KOi\as, and <pdpay^, rSiv aXSiv ; Alex. FTjjuaAa, 
TaijxiXa : Vallis SaUnaruin). A certain valley, or 
perhaps more accurately a " ravine," the Hebrew 
woid Ge appearing to bear that signification — in 
which occuired two memorable victories of the 
Israelite amis. 

1. That of David over the Edomites (2 Sam. 
viii. 13; 1 Chr. xviii. 12). It appears to have 
immediately followed his Syrian campaign, and 
was itself one of the incidents of the great Edomite 
war of extermination.* The battle in the Valley 
of Salt appears to have been conducted by Abishai 
(1 Chr. xviii. 12), but David and Joab were both 
present in person at the battle and in the pursuit 
and campaign which followed ; and Joab was left 
behind for six months to consummate the doom 
of the conquered country (I K. xi. 15, 16 ; Ps. Ix. 
title). The number of Edomites slain in the battle 
is uncertain : the narratives of Samuel and Chronicles 
both aive it at 18,000, but this figure is lowered in 
the ti"tle of Ps. Ix. to 12,000. 

2. That of Amaziah (2 K. xiv. 7 ; 2 Chr. sxv. 
11), who is related to have slain ten thousand 
Edomites in this valley, and then to have jn-o- 
ceeded, with 10,000 prisoners, to the stronghold of 
the nation at has-Sela, the Cliff, i. e. Petra, and, 
after taking it, to have massacred them by hurling 
them down the precipice which gave its ancient 
name to the city. 



» The Received Text of 2 Sam. viii. 13 omits the men- 
tion of Edomites ; but from a comparison of the parallel 
passages in 1 Chr. and in the title of I's. Ix. there is good 
ground for believing that the verse originally stood thns ; 
" And David made himself a name [when he returned 
from smiting tlie Aramites] [and when he returned he 
smote the Edomites] in the Valley of Salt — eighteen 
thousand ;" the two clauses within brackets having been 
omitted by the Greek and Hebrew scribes respectively, 
owing to the very close resemblance of tlie wuids with 
which each clause finishes— Q>01J< and CiDIN- I"'"'^ 
is the conjecture of Theuius {Exeij. IJandbuch), and is 

Neither of these notices affords any clue to the 
situation of the V^alley of Salt, nor does the cursoiy 
mention of the name ("Gemela" and "Mela") 
in the Onomasticon. By Josephus it is not named 
on either occasion. Seetzen (lieisen, ii. ;'i56) was 
probably the first to suggest that it was the broad 
open plain which lies at the lower end of the Dead 
Sea, and intervenes between the lake itself and the 
range of heights which crosses the valley at .six or 
eight miles to the south. The same view is taken 
(more decisively) by Dr. Robinson {B. Ii. ii. 109). 
The plain is in fact the termination of the Ghor or 
valley through which the Jordan flows from the 
Lake of Tiberias to the Dead Sea. Its N.W. corner 
is occupied by the Khashm Usdum, a mountain of 
rock salt, between which and the lake is an extensive 
salt marsh, while salt streams and brackish springs 
pervade, more or less, the entire western half of the 
plain. Without presuming to contradict this sug- 
gestion, which yet can hardly be affirmed with safetT 
in the very imperfect condition of our knowledge of 
the inaccessible regions .S. and S.E. of the Dead Sea, 
it may be well to call attention to some considera- 
tions, which seem to stand in the way of the unplicit 
reception which most writers have given it since the 
publication of Dr. R.'s Researches. 

{a) The word Ge (^<''J), employed for the place 
in question, is not, to the writer's knowledge, else- 
whei'e applied to a broacj valley or sunk plain 
of the nature of the lower Ghor. Such tracts are 
denoted in the Scripture by the words Etnek or 
Bika'ah, while Ge appears to be resa-red for clefts 
or ravines of a deeper and narrower character. 

(6) A priori, one would expect the tract in 
question to be called in Scripture by the pecu- 
liar name uniformly applied to the more northern 
parts of the same valley — ha-Arahah — in the same 
manner that the Arabs now call it el-Ghor — Ghor 
being their equivalent for the Hebrew Ardbah. 

(c) The name " Salt," though at first sight con- 
clusive, becomes less so on reflection. It does not 
follow, because the Hebrew word melach signifies 
salt, that therefore the valley was salt. A case 
exactly parallel exists at el-Milh, the representative 
of the ancient Moladah, some sixteen miles south 
of Hebron. Like melach, milh signifies salt ; but 
there is no reason to believe that there is any salt 
present there, and Dr. liobinson {B. R. ii. 201 note') 
himself justly adduces it as "an instance of the 
usual tendency of popular pronunciation to reduce 
foreign proper names to a significant form." Just 
as el-Milh is the Arabic representative of the 
Hebrew Moladah, so possibly was ge-melach the 
Hebrew representative of some archaic Edomite 

{d) What little can be inferred from the narra- 
tive as to the situation of the Ge-Melach is in 
favour of its being nearer to Petra. A.ssuming 
Selah to be Petra (the chain of evidence for which 

adopted by Bunsen (Bibelwerk, note to the passage). 
Ewald has shown (^Gesch. iii. 201, 2) that the whole 

passage is very much disordered. D^ ^'V!l should pro- 
bably be rendered " and set up a monument," instead 
of "and gat a name" (Gesen. Thes. 14316)); Michaelis 
(Suppl. No. 2501, and note to Bibelfur Ungel.) ; De Wette 
{Bihel) ; LXX. Coisl. koI i6-t]Kev eo-njA.M/i.e'nji' ; Jerome 
{Quaest. Ilebi'.), erexit fornicem triumphalcm. liaschi 
interprets it " reputation," and makes the reputation to 
have arisen from David's good act in burying the dead 
even of his enemies. 

1098 SALU 

is tolerably connected), it seems diflicult to believe 
that a large body of prisoners should have been 
dragged for upwards of fifty miles through the 
heart of a hostile and most difficult country, merely 
for massacre. [0.] 

SA'LU (X-1?D : SaA^aJc ; Alex. %a\<a : Salu). 
The father of Zimri the prince of the Simeonites, 
who was slain by Phiuehas (Num. x.xv. 14). Called 
also Salom. 

SA'LUM(2aA.oij^: Esmennns). 1. Siiallum, 
the head of a family of gatekeepers (A. V. " porters") 
of the Tempk' (1 Esd. v. 28; comp. Ezr. ii. 42). 

2. (2a\-)]fjLos : Solome.) Shallum, the father 
of Hilkiah and ancestor of Ezra (1 Esd. viii. 1 ; 
comp. Ezr. vii. 2). Called also Sadamias and 

SALUTATION. Salutations may be classed 
iftder the two heads of conversational and epistolary. 
'I'he salutation at meeting consisted in early times 
of various e.xpiessions of blessing, such as " God be 
gracious unto thee" (Gen. xliii. 29); " Blessed be 
thou of the Lord " (Ruth iii. 10 ; 1 Sam. xv. 13) ; 
" The Lord be with you," '' The Lord bless thee " 
(Ruth ii. 4) ; " The blessing of the Lord be upon 
you ; we bless you in the name of the Lord " (Ps. 
cxxix. 8). Hence the term "bless" received the 
secondary sense of " saiute," and is occasionally so 
rendered in the A. V. (1 Sam. xiii. 10, xxv. 14; 
2 K. iv. 29, X. 15), though not so frequently as it 
might have been {e.g. Gen. xxvii. 23, xlvii. 7, 10 ; 
1 K. viii. 66). The blessing was sometimes accom- 
panied with inquiries as to the health either of the 
person addressed or his relations. The Hebrew 
term used in these instances (shdlom'^) has no special 
reference to " peace," as stated in the marginal 
translation, but to general well-being, and strictly 
answers to our " welfare," as given in the text (Gen. 
xliii. 27 ; Ex. xviii. 7). It is used not only in the 
case of salutation (in which sense it is frequently 
rendered "to salute," e.g. Judg. xviii. 15 ; 1 Sam. 
X. 4 ; 2 K. X. 13) ; but also in other cases where it 
is designed to soothe or to encourage a person (Gen. 
xliii. 23 ; Judg. vi. 23, xix. 20 ; 1 Chr. xii. 18 ; 
Dan. X. 19; compare 1 Sam. xx. 21, where it is 
opposed to " hurt ;" 2 Sam. xviii. 28, " all is well ;" 
and 2 Sara. xi. 7, where it is applied to the progress 
of the war). The salutation at parting consisted 
originally of a simple blessing (Gen. xxiv. 60, 
xxviii. 1, xlvii. 10; Josh. x.\ii. 6), but in later 
times the teim shdlom was introduced here also in 
the form " (jo in peace," or rather " Farewell " 
(1 Sam. i. 17, .xx. 42 ; 2 Sam. xv. 9). This^ was 
current at the time of our Saviour's ministry 
(Mark v. 34 ; Luke vii. 50 ; Acts xvi. 36), and is 
adopted by Him in His parting addiess to His dis- 
ciples (John xiv. 27). It had even passed into a 
salutation on meeting, in such forms as " Peace be 
to this house" (Luke x. 5), *' Peace be unto you" 
(Luke xxiv. 36 ; John xx. 19). The more common 
salutation, however, at this period was borrowed 
from the Cireeks, their word x"'P*"' being used 
both at meeting (Matt. xxvi. 49, xxviii. 9 ; Luke i. 
28), and probably also at depai-ture. In modeiii 
times tlie ordinary mode of address current in the 
East resembles the tiahvew :—Es-seldin alcykuia, 
" Peace be on you" (Lane's Mod. Eg. ii. 7), and 


the term " salam " has been introduced into our 
own language to describe the Oriental salutation. 

The forms of greeting that we have noticed, were 
freely exchanged among persons of diflijrent i-anks 
on the occasion of a casual meeting, and this even 
when they were strangers. Thus Boaz exchanged 
gieeting with his reapers (Ruth ii. 4), the tra- 
veller on the road saluted the worker in the field 
(Ps. cxxix. 8), and members of the same family in- 
terchanged greetings on rising in the morning (Prov. 
xxvii. 14). The only restriction appears to have 
been in regard to religion, the Jew of old, as tlie 
]\Iohammedan of the present day, paying the com- 
pliment only to those whom he considered "bre- 
thren," i. e. members of the same religious com- 
munity (Matt. v. 47 ; Lane,ii.8; 'isiehuhr, Bescript. 
p. 43). Even the Apostle St. John forbids an 
interchange of greeting where it im])lied a wish 
for the success of a bad cause (2 John 11). In 
modern times the Orientals are famed for the ela- 
borate formality of their greetings, which occupy a 
very considerable time ; the instances given in the 
Bible do not bear such a character, and therefore 
the prohibition addressed to persons engaged in 
urgent business, " Salute no man by the way " (2 K. 
iv. 29 ; Luke x. 4), may best be referred to the 
delay likely to ensue from subsequent conversation. 
Among the Persians the monarch was nevei- ap- 
proached without the salutation " Oh, king ! live 
for ever" (Dan. ii. 4, &c.). There is no evidence 
that this ever became current among the Jews : the 
expression in 1 K. i. 31, was elicited by the previous 
allusion on the part of David to his own decease. 
In lieu of it we meet with the Greek x"(pe> " hail !" 
(Matt, xxvii. 29). The act of salutation was ac- 
companied with a variety of gestuies expressive of 
diflereut degrees of humiliation, and sometimes with 
a kiss. [Adoration ; Kiss.] These acts involved 
the necessity of dismounting in case a person were 
riding or driving (Gen. xxiv. 64 ; 1 Sam. xxv. 23 ; 
2 K. V. 21). The same custom still prevails in the 
East (Niebuhr's Descript. p. 39). 

The l^istolary salutations in the period subsequent 
to the 0. T. were framed on the model of tlie Latin 
style : the addition of the term " peace " may, how- 
ever, be regarded as a vestige of the old Hebrew 
form (2 Mace. i. 1). The writer placed his own' 
name first, and then that of the peison whom he 
saluted ; it was only in special cases that this order 
was reversed (2 Mace. i. 1, ix. 19 ; 1 Esdr. vi. 7). 
A combination of the first and third persons in the 
terms of the salutation was not unfrequeut (Gal. i. 
1, 2; Philem. 1; 2 Pet. i. 1). The term used 
(either expressed or understood) in the introductory 
salutation was the Greek X'^'P^'" '" ''^" elliptical 
construction (1 Mace. x. 18; 2 Mace. ix. 19; 
1 Esdr. viii. 9 ; Acts xxiii. 26) ; this, however, was 
more frequently omitted, and the only Apostolic 
passages in which it occurs are Acts xv, 23 and 
.James i. 1, a coincidence which renders it probable 
that St. James comiwsed the letter in the former 
passage. A foi-m of prayer for spiritual meicies was 
also used, consisting geno'ally of the terms " grace 
and peace," but in the three Pastoral Epistles and 
in 2 John, "grace, mercy, and peace," and in Jude 
" mercy, peace, and love." The concluding saluta- 
tion consisted ocrasionally of a translation of the 
Latin valete (Acts xv. 29, xNiii. 30), but more ge- 


b I'he Greek expression is evidently borrowed from the 
Hebrew, the preposition ets not betokening the state into 

which, but answering to the Hebrew 7, in which tlie 
person departs. 


nerally of the term atrirafo/ioi, " I salute," or the 
cognate substantive, accompanied by a prayer tor 
peace or grace. St. Paul, who availed himself of 
an amanuensis (Rom. xvi. 22), added the salutation 
with his own hand (1 Cor. xvi. 21 ; Col. iv. 18 ; 
2 Thes. iii. 17). The omission of the introductory 
salutation in the Epistle to the Hebrews is veiy 
noticeable. [VV. L. B.] 

SAM'AEL (2oA.a(Uir)A. : Salathiel), a variation 
for (margin) Salamiel [Siielumiel] in Jud. viii. 1 
(comp. Num. i. G). The form in A. V. is given 
by Aldus. [B. F. W.] 

SAMAI'AS CZafxaias : Scmekis). 1. She- 
MAIAH the l.evite in the reign of Josiah (I Esd. i. 
9 ; comp. 2 Chr. .xxxv. 9). 

2. Shemaiah of the sons of Adonikam (1 Esd. 
viii. 39 ; comp. Ezr. viii. 13). 

3. (26/U€i'; Alex. 2e/ueias : om. in Vulg.) The 
•' gieat Samaias," father of Ananias and Jonathas 
(fob. V. 13). 

SAMA'RIA(p-|pb', i.e. Shomeron ; Chald. 

pIDE^' : Sa^uapeia, 'X^firjpdv, 'Zo/xdpwv'^ ; Joseph. 

'Sajiidpeia, hut Ant. viii. 12, §5, 'XefJ-apewf : Sa- 
maria), a city of Palestine. 

The word Shomeron means, etymologically, "per- 
taining to a watch," or " a watch-mountain ;" and 
we should almost be inclined to think that the pecu- 
liarity of the situation of Samaria gave occasion to 
its name. In the territory oi'iginally belonging to 
the tribe of Joseph, about six miles to the north-west 
of Shechem, there is a wide basin-shaped valley, 
encircled with high hills, almost on the edge of the 
great plain which borders upon the Mediterranean. 
In the centre of this basin, which is on a lower 
level than the valley of Shechem, rises a less elevated 
oblong hill, with steep yet accessible sides, and a 
long Hat top. This hill was chosen by Omri, as the 
site of the capital of the kingdom of Israel. The 
first capital after the secession of the ten tribes had 
been Shechem itself, whither all Israel had come to 
make Rehoboam king. On the separation being fully 
accomplished, Jeroboam rebuilt that city (1 K. xii. 
25), which had been razed to the ground by Abi- 
melech (Judg. ix. 45). But he soon moved to 
Tirzah, a place, as Dr. Stanley observes, of great and 
proverbial beauty (Cant. vi. 4) ; which continued to 
be the royal residence until Zimri burnt the palace 
and perished in its ruins (1 K. xiv. 17 ; xv. 21, 33 ; 
xvi. 6-18). ' Omri, who prevailed in the contest for j 
the kingdom that ensued, after " reigning six years " 
there, " bought the hill of Samaria ( ppb' "inn ; rh 
opos TO ^efjLTtpdv) of Shemer ("iDtJ' ; 'Xffi-rjp, Joseph. 
^efiapos) for two talents of silver, and built on 
the hill, and called the name of the city which 
he built, after the name of the owner of the hill, 
Samaria" (1 K. xvi. 23, 24). This statement of 
course dispenses with the etymology above alluded 
to ; but the central position of the hill, as Herod 
sagaciously observed long afterwards, made it ad- 
mirably adapted for a place of observation, and a 
fortress to awe the neighbouring country. And the 
singular beauty of the spot, upon which, to this hour, 
travellers dwell with admiration, may have struck 
Omri, as it afterwards struck the tasteful Idu- 
mean (B. J. i. 21, §2; Ant. xv. 8, §5). 


From the date of Omri's purchase, n.c. 925, 
Samaria retained its dignity as the capital of the 
ten tribes. Ahab built a temple to B;ial thei'e 
(1 K. xvi. 32, 33); and from this circumstance a 
portion of the city, possibly fortified by a separate 
wall, was called " the city of the house of Baal " 
(2 K. X. 25). Samaria must have been a place 
of great strength. It was twice besieged by the 
Syrians, in B.C. 901 (1 K. xx. 1), and in B.C. 892 
(2 K. vi. 24-vii. 20) ; but on both occasions the 
siege was ineffectual. Ou the latter, mdeed, it 
was relieved miraculously, but not until the inha- 
bitants had suffered almost incredible horrors from 
famine during their protracted resistance. The pos- 
sessor of Samaria was considered to be de facto 
king of Israel (2 K. xv. 13,14); and woes denounced 
against the nation were directed against it by name 
(Is. vii. 9, &c.). In B.C. 721, Samaria was taken, 
after a siege of three years, by Shalmaneser, king of 
Assyria (2 K. xviii. 9, 10), and the kingdom of the 
ten tribes was put an end to. [See below. No. 3.1 
Some years afterwards the disti'ict of which Samaria 
was the centre was repeopled by Esarhaddon ; but 
we do not hear especially of the city until the days 
of Alexander the Great. That conqueror took the 
city, which seems to have somewhat recovered itself 
(Euseb. Chron. ad anu. Abr.- 1684), killed a large 
portion of the inhabitants, and suffered the remainder 
to settle at Shechem. [Shechem : Svchar.] 
He replaced them by a colony of Syro-Macedonians, 
and gave the adjacent territory ('Xafiapflris x^P") 
to the Jews to inhabit (Joseph, c. Ap. ii. 4). These 
Sj'ro- Macedonians occupiied the city until the time 
of John Hyrcanus. It was then a place of consi- 
derable importance, for Josephus describes it {A7it. 
xiii. 10, §2) as a very strong city (iro'Ais oxvpu- 
Tdrrf). John Hyrcanus took it after a year's siege, 
and did his best to deiuolish it entirely. He inter- 
sected the hill on which it lay with trenches : 
into these he conducted the natural brooks, and 
thus undermined its foundations. " In fact," says 
the Jewish historian, " he took away all evidence 
of the very existence of the city." This story at 
first sight seems rather exaggerated, and incon- 
sistent with the hilly site of Samaria. It may 
have referred only to the suburbs lying at its foot. 
" But," says Prideaux {Conn. B.C. 109, note), " Ben- 
jamin of Tudela, who was in the place, tells us in 
his Itinerary'' that there were upon the top of this 
hill many fountains of water, and from these water 
enough may have been derived to fill these trenches." 
It should also be recollected that the hill of Samaria 
was lower than the hills in its neighbourhood. This 
may account for the existence of these springs. 
Josephus describes the extremities to which the 
inhabitants were reduced during this siege, much in 
the same way that the author of the Book of Kings 
does during that of Benhadad (comp. Ant. xiii. 10, 
§2, with 2 K. vi. 25). John Hyrcanus' reasons 
for attacking Samaria were the injuries which its 
inhabitants had done to the people of Clarissa, 
colonists and allies of the Jews. This confirms what 
was said above, of the cession of the Samaritan neigh- 
bourhood to the Jews by Alexander the Great. 

After this disaster (which occurred in B.C. 109), 
the Jews inhabited what remained of the city ; at 
least we find it in their possession in the time of 
Alexander Jannaeus {Ant. xiii. 15, §4), and until 

=* '['he prevailing LXX. form in the 0. T. is ^aixapeca, puip (Mai, Sco/oitopwi') ; Neh. iv. 2, Is. vii. 9, ^on6pov. 
with the following renuirkable excfptions :— 1 K. xvi. 24. j i> No such passage, however, now exists in Beiijumin of 
::itinepu,y . . . 2c^>;pw>/ (Mai, 2afi))pui/) ; Ezr. iv. 10, ^oixo- Tudola. See the editions of Ashcr and of Bolia. 



I'ompey gave it back to the descendants of its 
original inhabitants (ro7s oiK-qropffiv). These oIk^- 
Topfs may possibly have been the Syro-Macedoiiians, 
but it is moi'e probable that they were Samaritans 
proper, whose ancestors had been dispossessed by the 
colonists of Alexander the Great. By directions of 
Gabinius, Samaria and other demolished cities were 
rebuilt {Ant. xiv. 5, §3). But its more effectual 
rebuilding was undertaken by Herod the Great, to 
whom it had been granted by Augustus, on the 
death of Antony and Cleopatra {Ant. xiii. 10, §3, 
XV. 8, §5 ; B. J. i. 20, §3). He called it Sebaste, 
Se/SacTTT) = Augusta, after the name of his patron 
{Ant. XV. 7, §7). Josephus gives an elaborate de- 
scription of Herod's improvements. The wall sur- 
rounding it was 20 stadia in length. In the middle 
of it was a close, of a stadium and a half square, 
containing a magniticent temple, dedicated to the 
Caesar. It was colonised by 6000 veterans and 
others, for whose support a most beautiful and 
I'ich district surrounding the city was appropriated. 
Herod's motives in these arrangements were pro- 
bably, first, the occupation of a commanding position, 
and then the desire of distinguishing himself for taste 
by the embellishment of a spot already so adorned by 
nature {Ant. xv. 8, §5 ; B. J. i. 20, §3 ; 21, §2). 

How long Samaria maint;xined its splendour after 
Herod's improvements we are not informed. In 
the N. T. the city itself does not appear to be men- 
tioned, but rather a portion of the district to which, 
even in older times, it had extended its name. Our 
Version, indeed, of Acts viii. 5 says that Philip 
the deacon " went down to the city of Samaria ;" 
but the Greek of the passage is simply ils troKiv 
TTj'i '2,afiapeias. And we may fairly argue, both 
from the absence of the definite article, and from 
the probability that, had the city Samaria been 
intended, the term employed would have been 
Svbaste, that some one city of the district, the 
name of which is not specified, was in the mind 
of the writer. In verse 9 of the same chapter " the 
people of Samaria" represents rh eOvos rrjs Sojua- 
piias ; and the phrase in verse 25, " many villages 
of the Samaritans," shows that the operations of 
evangelizing were not confined to the city of Sa- 
maria itself, if they were ever carried on there. 
Comp. Matt. x. 5, " Into any city of the Samaritans 
enter ye not;" and John iv. 4, 5, where, after it has 
been said, " And He must needs go through Samaria," 
obviously the district, it is subjoined, "Then cometh 
He to a city of Samaria called Sychar." Hence- 
forth its history is very unconnected. Septimius 
Severus planted a Koman colony there in the begin- 
ning of the third century (Ulpian, Leg. I. de Cen- 
sihus, quoted by Dr. Kobinson). Various specimens 
of coins struck on the spot have been preserved, 
extending from Nero to Geta, the brother of Cara- 
calla (Vaillant, iu Numisin. Iinper., and Koris, 
quoted by lieland). But, though the seat of a lio- 
man colony, it could not have been a place of much 
political imjiortance. We find in the Codex of 
Theodosius, that by a. I). 409 the Holy Land had 
been divided into Palaestina Piima, Secunda, and 
Tertia. Palaestina Prima included the country oT 
the Philistines, Samaria (the district), and the 
northern part of .ludaea; but its capital was not 
Sebaste, but Caesarea. In an ecclesiastical point of 
view it stood rather higher. It was an episcopal 
see probably as early as the third century. At 
any rate its bishop was present amongst those of 
Palestine at the Council of Niaiea, A.u. 325, and 
subscribed ils acts as " Maximus (al. Mai'inus) 


Sebastenus." The names of some of his successors 
have been preserved — the latest of them mentioned 
is Pelagius, who attended the Synod at Jerusalem, 
A.D. 536. The title of the see occurs iu the 
earlier Greek Notitiae, and in the later Latin ones 
(lieUmd, Pal. 214-229). Sebaste fell into the hands 
of the Mahommedans during the siege of Jeru- 
salem. In the course of the Crusades a Latin 
bishopric was established there, the title of which 
was recognised by the Roman Church until the 
fourteenth century. At this day the city of Omri 
and of Herod is represented by a small village 
I'etaining few vestiges of the past except its name, 
Sebustieh, an Arabic corruption of Sebaste. Some 
architectural remains it has, partly of Christian 
construction or adaptation, as the ruined church 
of St. John the Baptist, partly, perhaps, tracei^ of 
Idumaean magnificence. " A long avenue of broken 
pillars (says Dr. Stanley), apparently the main 
street of Herod's city, heie, as at Palmyra and 
Damascus, adorned by a colonnade on each side, 
still lines the topmost terrace of the hill." But 
the fragmentary aspect of the whole place exhibits 
a present fulfilment of the prophecy of Micah 
(i. 6), though it may have been fulfilled more than 
once previously by the lavages of Shalmaneser or 
of John Ilyrcanus. " I will make Samaria as an 
heap of the field, and as plantings of a vineyard : 
and I will pour down the stones thereof into the 
valley, and I will discover the foundations thereof" 
(Mic. i. 6; comp. Hos. xiii. 16). 

St. Jerome, whose acquaintance with Palestine 
imparts a sort of probability to the tradition which 
prevailed so strongly in later days, asserts that 
Sebaste, which he invariably identifies with Samaria, 
was the place in which St. John the Baptist was 
imprisoned and suffered death. He also makes it 
the burial-place of the prophets Elisha and Obadiah 
(see various passages cited by Keland, pp. 980-981). 
Epiphanius is at great pains, in his work Adv. 
Ilaereses (lib. i.), iu which he treats of the heresies 
of the Samaritans with singular minuteness, to 
account for the origin of their name. He interprets 
it as D''"10K', (pvAaKes, or " keepers." The hill 
on which the city was built was, he says, designated 
Somer or Someron (2cDjurjp, ^wfiopaiv), from a 
certain Somoron the son of Somer, whom he con- 
siders to have been of the stock of the ancient 
Perizzites or Girgashites, themselves descendants of 
Canaan and Ham. But he adds, the inhabitants 
may have been called Samaritans from their guard- 
ing the land, or (coming down much later in their 
history) from their guarding the Law, as distin- 
guished from the later writings of the Jewish Ciuion, 
which they refused to allow. [See Samaritans.] 

For modern descriptions of the condition of Sa- 
maria and its neighbourhood, see Dr. Robinson's 
Biblical Researches, ii. 127-33; Reland's Palaes- 
tina, 344, 979-982 ; Kaumer's Palastina, 144-148, 
notes ; Van de Velde's St/ria and Palestine, i. 363- 
388, and ii. 295, 296, Map, and Memoir ; Dr. Stan- 
ley's Sinai and Palestine, 242-246 ; and a short 
article by Mr. G. Williams in the Diet, of Oeog. 
Dr. Kitto, in his Physical History of Palestine, pp. 
cxvii., cxviii., has an interesting reference to and 
extract from Sandys, illustrative of its topogi-aphy 
and general aspect at the commencement of the 
seventeenth century. 

2. The Samaria named in the present text ot' 
1 Mace. V. ij() {t7]p 2,afj.apiiav : Samarium) is evi- 
dently an error. At any rate the well-known Sa- 



Bthind the citv are the mountam"! of Ephraim verging ( 
Ihe oiipnal sketch from T\hich this \-ie\\ is taken 

mai'ia of the Old and New Testaments cannot be 
intended, for it is obvious that Judas, in passing 
from Hebi'on to the land of the Philistines (Azotus), 
could not make so immense a detour. The true 
correction is doubtless supplied by Josephus (^Aiit. 
,xii. 8, §0), who has Marissa (i. c. Maresha), a place 
which lay in the road from Hebron to the Philistine 
Plain. One of the ancient Latin Versions exhibits 
the same reading ; which is accepted by Ewald 
{Gesch. iv. 361) and a host of commentators (see 
Gi'imm, Kurzg. Exeg. Hcmclh., on the passage). 
Drusius proposed Shaaraim ; but this is hardly so 
feasible as Maresha, and has no external support. 

3. Samaria (ji "XafiapelTis x^P'^'i Joseph. x'^P« 
'2,aiJ.api(ov ; Ptol. 2a/xopis, Sajuapeia: Samaria). 

Samaritans (□"'J'"^pC^' : Sajuapeirai ; Joseph. 

There are few questions in Biblical philology 
upon which, in recent times, scholars have come 
to such opposite conclusions as the extent of the 
territory to which the former of these words is 
applicable, and tlie origin of the peojile to which 
the latter is applied in the N. T. But a probable 
solution of them may be gained by cai'eful attention 
to the historical statements of Holy Scripture and 
of Josephus, and by a consideration of the geo- 
graphical features of Palestine. 

In the strictest sense of the tei'm, a SAMARITAN 
would be an inhabitant of the citij of Samaria. But 
it is not found at all in this sense, exclusively at 
any rate, in the 0. T. In fact, it only occurs there 
once, and then in a wider signification, in 2 K. xvii. 
29. There it is employed to designate those whom 
the king of Assyria had •' placed in (what are 
called) the cities of Samaria (whatever these may 
be) instead of the children of Israel." 

Were the word Samaritan found elsewhere in the 
O. T., it would have designated those who belonged 
to the kingdom of the ten tribes, which in a large 
sense was called Samaria. And as the extent of that 
kingdom varied, which it did very much, gradually 

I the Plam of Sharon The Mediterranean Sea is 
OS maile hj Wilham Tipping, Esq., in 1842, and 

1 the furthest distance 
engraved bj his kind 

diminishing to the time of Shalmaneser, .so the 
extent of the word Samaritan would have varied. 

.Sam.\RIA at first included all the tribes over 
which Jeroboam rnade himself king, whether east 
or west of the river Joisdan. Hence, even before 
the city of Samaria existed, we find the " old pro- 
phet who dwelt at Bethel" describing the predic- 
tions of " the man of God who came from Judah," 
in reference to the altar at Bethel, as directed not 
merely against that altar, but " against all the 
houses of the high-places which are in the cities 
of Samaria " (1 K. xiii. 32), i. e., of course, the 
cities of which Samaria was, or was to be, the head 
01' capital. In other places in the historical books 
of the 0. T. (with the e.xception of 2 K. xvii. 24, 
26, 28, 29) Samaria seems to denote the city ex- 
clusively. But the prophets use the word, much 
as did the old prophet of Bethel, in a greatly ex- 
tended sense. Thus the " calf of Bethel " is called 
by Hosea (viii. 5, 6) the " calf of Samaria ;" in 
Amos (iii. 9) the "mountains of Samaria" are 
spoken of; and the " captivit)' of Samaria and her 
daughters" is a phi-ase found in Ezekiel (xvi. 53). 
Hence the woi-d Samaritan must have denoted every 
one subject to the king of the northern capital. 

But, whatever extent the word might have ac- 
quired, it necessarily became contracted as the limits 
of the kingdom of Israel became contracted. In all 
probability the territory of-Simeoii and that of Dan 
were very early absorbed in the kingdom of Judah. 
This would be one limitation. Next, in B.C. 771 
and 740 respectively, " Pul, king of Assyria, and 
Tilgath-pilneser, king of Assyria, atn'ied away the 
Reubenites and the Gadites, and the half-tribe of 
Manasseh, and brought them unto Halah, and 
Habor, and Hara, and to the river Gozan " (1 Chr. 
V. 26). This would be a secoird limitation. But 
the latter of these kings went further: "He took 
Ijon, and Abel-beth-maachah, and Janoah, and 
Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, all the 
land of Naphtali, and carried them captive to As- 
syria" (2 K. XV. 29). This would be a third 



limitation. Nearly a century before, B.C. 860, 
"the Lord had begun to cut Israel short;" for 
" Hazael, king of Syria, smote them in all the 
coasts of Israel ; from Jordan e;ist\vard, all the land 
of Gilead, the Gadites, and the Reubenites, and the 
Manassites, from Aroer, which is by the river 
Arnon, even Gilead and Bashan " (2 K. x. 32, 33). 
This, however, as we may conjecture from the 
diversity of expression, had been merely a passing 
inroad, and had involved no pemianent subjection 
of the country, or deportation of its inhabitants. 
The invasions of Pul and of Tilgath-pilneser were 
utter clearances of the population. The territory 
thus desolated by them was probably occupied by 
degrees by the pushing forward of the neighbouiiiig 
heathen, or by straggling families of the Israelites 
themselves. In reference to the northern part of 
Galilee we know that a heathen population pre- 
vailed. Hence the phrase " Galilee of the Nations," 
or "Gentiles" (Is. ix. 1 ; 1 Mac. v. 15). And no 
doubt this was the case also beyond Jordan. 

But we have yet to arrive at a fourth limitation 
of the kingdom of Samaria, and, by consequence, of 
the word Samaritan. It is evident from an occur- 
rence in Hezekiah's reign, that just before the depo- 
sition and death of Hoshea, the last king of Israel, 
the authority of the king of Judah, or, at least, his 
influence, was lecognised by portions of Asher, Issa- 
char, and Zebulun, and even of Ephraim and Ma- 
nasseh (2 Chr. xxs. 1-26). Men came from all 
those tribes to the Passover at Jerusalem. This 
was about B.C. 726. In fact, to such miserable 
limits had the kingdom of Samaria been reduced, 
that when, two or three years afterwards, we are 
told that " Shalmaneser came up throughout the 
land," and after a siege of three years " took Sa- 
maria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and 
placed them in Halah, and in Habor by the rivei- 
Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes " (2 K. xvii. 
.5, 6), and when again we are told that " Israel 
was carried away out of their own land into As- 
syria" (2 K. xvii. 23), we must suppose a very 
small field of operations. Samaria (the city), and 
a few adjacent cities or villages only, represented 
that dominion which had once extended from Bethel 
to Dan northwards, and from the Mediterranean to 
the borders of Syria and Amnion eastwards. This 
is further confirmed by what we read of Josiah's 
progress, in B.C. 641, through "the cities of Ma- 
nasseh and Ephraim and Simeon, even unto Naph- 
tali" (2 Chr. xxxiv. 6). Such a progiess would 
have been impracticable had the number of cities 
and villages occupied by the persons then called 
Samaritans been at all laige. 

This, however, brings us more closely to the 
second point of our discussion, the origin'of those 
who are in 2 K. xvii. 29, and in the N. T., called 
Samaritans. Shalmaneser, as we have seen (2 K. 
x\ii. 5, 6, 26), carried Israel, i. e. the remnant of 
the ten tribes which still acknowledged Hoshea's 
authority, into Assyria. This remnant consisted, as 
has been shown, of Samaria (the city) and a few 
adjacent cities and villages. Now, 1. Did he carry 
away all their inhabitants, or no? 2. Whether 
tliey were wholly or only partially desolated, who 
i-eplaced the deported population ? On the answer 
to these inquiries will depend our determination of 
the questions, were the Samaritans a mixed race, 
composed partly of Jews, partly of new settlers, or 
were they purely of foreign extraction? 

In reference to the former of these inquiries, it 
may be oljserved that the language of Scripture 


admits of scarcely a doubt. " Israel was airried . 
away" (2 K. xvii. 6, 23), and other nations were 
placed " in the cities of Samaria instead of the 
children of Israel " (2 K. xvii. 24). There is no 
mention whatever, as in the case of the somewhat 
parallel destruction of the kingdom of Judah, of 
" the poor of the land being left to be vine-dressers 
and husbandmen" (2 K. xxv. 12). We add, that, 
had any been left, it would have been impossible 
for the new inhabitants to have been so utterly 
unable to acquaint themselves with " the manner 
of the God of the land," as to require to be taught 
by some priest of the captivity sent from the king 
of Assyi'ia. Besides, it was not an unusual thing 
with Oiiental conquerors actually to exhaust a land 
of its inhabitants. Comp. Herod, iii. 149, " The 
Persians dragged [ffayrjvevcrai'Tfs) Samos, and deli- 
vered it up to Syloson stript of all its men ;" and, 
again, Herod, vi. 31, for the application of the same 
treatment to other islands, where the process called 
(Tayriveveiv is described, and is compared to a 
hunting out of the population ( eKdrjpeveiv). Such 
a capture is presently contrasted with the capture 
of other tenitories to which crayrivevetv was not 
applied. Josephus's phrase in reference to the cities 
of Samaria is that Shalnianeser " transplanted all 
the people" {Ant. ix. 14, §1). A thieat against 
.lerusalem, which was indeed only partially carried 
out, shows how complete and summary the desola- 
tion of the last relics of the sister kingdom must 
have been : "I will stretch over Jerusalem the 
line of Samaria, and the plummet of the house of 
Ahab : and I will wipe Jerusalem as a man wipeth 
a dish : he wipeth and turneth it upon the face 
thereof" (2 K. xxi. 13). This w;is uttered within 
forty years after B.C. 721, during the reign of Ma- 
nasseh. It must have derived much strength from 
the recentness and proximity of the calamity. 

We may then conclude that the cities of Samaria 
were not merely partially, but wholly evacuated of 
their inhabitants in B.C. 721, and that they re- 
mained in this desolated state until, in the words 
of 2 K. xvii. 24, " the king of Assyria brought men 
from Babylon, and from Cuthali, and from Ava 
(Ivah, 2 K. xviii. 34}, and from Hamath, and from 
Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Sa- 
maria instead of the children of Israel : and they 
possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities theieof." 
Thus the new Samaritans — for such we must now 
call them — were Assyrians by birth or subjugation, 
were utterly strangers in the cities of Samaria, and 
were exclusively the inhabitants of those cities. An 
incidental question, however, arises. Who was the 
king of Assyria that effected this colonization? At 
first sight, one would suppose Shalmaneser ; for the 
naiTative is scarcely broken, and the repeopling 
seems to be a natural sequence of the depopulation. 
Such would appear to have been Josephus' view, for 
he says of Shalmaneser, " when he had removed the 
people out of their land, he brought other nations 
out of Cuthah, a place so called (for there is still in 
Persia a river of that name), into Samaria and the 
country of the Israelites" {Ant. ix. 14, §1, 3; x. 9, 
§7) ; but he must have been led to this interpretation 
simply by the juxtaposition of the two transactions 
in the Hebiew text. The Samaritans themselves, 
in Ezr. iv. 2, 10, attributed their colonization not to 
Shalmaneser, but to " Esar-haddon, king of Assur," 
or to " the great and noble Asnapper," either the 
king himself or one of his generals. It was probably 
on his invasion of Judah, in the reign of Manasseh, 
about B.C. 677, that Esarhaddon discovered the 


impolicy of leaving a tract upon the very fi-ontiers 
of that kingdom thus desolate, and deteimiued to 
garrison it with foreigners. The foct, too, that some 
of these foreigners came from Babylon would seem 
to direct us to Esarhaddon, rather than to his grand- 
father, Shalmaueser. It was only recently that 
Babylon had come into the hands of the Assyrian 
king. And there is another reason why this date 
should be preferred. It coincides with the termi- 
nation of the sixty-five years of Isaiah's prophecy, 
delivered B.C. 742, within which " Kphraim should 
be broken that it should not be a people " (Is. vii. 8). 
This was not etiectually accomplished until the very 
land itself was occupied by strangers. So long as 
this had not taken place, there might be hope of 
return: after it had tiiken place, no hope. Josephus 
{Ayit. X. 9, §7) expressly notices this difference in 
the cases of the ten and of the two tiibes. The land 
of tlie former became the possession of foreigners, 
the land of the latter not so. 

These strangers, whom we will now assume to 
have been placed in " the cities of Samaria " by 
Esarhaddon, were of course idolaters, and wor- 
shipped a strange medley of divinities. Each of the 
five nations, says Josephus, who is confirmed by 
the words of Scripture, had its own god. No place 
was found for the worship of Him who had once 
called the land His own, and whose it was still. 
God's displeasure was kindled, and they were in- 
fested by beasts of prey, which had probably 
increased to a great extent before their entrance 
upon it. " The Lord sent lions among them, which 
slew some of them." On their e.xplaining their 
miserable condition to the king of Assyria, he de- 
spatched one of the captive priests to teach them 
" how they should fear the Lord." The priest 
came accordingly, and henceforth, in the language 
of the sacred historian, they " feared the Lord, and 
served their graven images, both their children and 
their children's children : as did their fathers, so do 
they unto this day" (2 K. xvii. 41). This last 
sentence was pi'obably inserted by Ezra. It sei-ves 
two purposes : 1st, to qualify the pretensions of the 
Samaritans of Ezra's time to be pure worshippers 
of God — they weie no more exclusively His ser- 
vants, than was the Roman empeior who desired to 
place a statue of Christ in the Pantheon entitled to 
be called a Christian ; and, 2ndly, to show how en- 
tirely the Samaritans of later days differed from 
their ancestors in respect to idolatry. Josephus' 
account of the distress of the Samaritans, and of the 
I'emedy for it, is very similar, with the exception 
that with liim they are afflicted with pestilence. 

Such was the origin of the post-captivity or new 
Samaritans — men not of Jewish extraction, but from 
the farther East : " the Cuthaeans had formerly be- 
longeil to the inner parts of Persia and Media, but 
were then called ' Samaritans,' taking the name of 
the country to which they were removed," savs 
Josephus {Ant. x. 9, §7). And again he says (Aiit. 
ix. 14, §3 j they are called " in Hebrew ' Cuthaeans,' 
but in Greek ' Samaritans.' " Our Lord expressly 
terms them aWoyevus (Luke xvii. 18); and Jo- 
sephus' whole account of them shows that he believed 
them to have been fiiToiKoi a\Xoe6ve7s, though, 
as he tells us in two places {Ant. ix. 14, §3, and 
xi. 8, §6), they sometimes gave a different account 
of their origin. But of this bye and bye. A gap 
occurs in their history until Judah has returned 
from captivity. They then desire to be allowed to 
participate in the rebuilding of the Temple at Jeru- 
salem. It is curious, and perhaps indicative of the 



treacherous character of their designs, to find them 
even then called, by anticipation, " the adversaries 
of Judah and Benjamin " (Ezr. iv. 1), a title which 
they afterwards fully justified. But, so far as pro- 
fessions go, they are not enemies ; they are most 
anxious to be friends. Their religion, they assert, 
is the same as that of the two tribes, therefore they 
have a right to share in that great religious under- 
taking. But tliey do not call it a national under- 
taking. They advance no pretensions to Jewish blood. 
They confess their Assyrian descent, and even put it 
forward ostentatiously, perhaps to enhance the merit 
of their partial conversion to God. That it was but 
partial they give no hint. It may have become 
purer already, but we have no information that it 
had. Be this, however, as it may, the Jews do not 
listen favourably to their overtures. Ezra, no doubt, 
from whose pen we have a record of the transaction, 
saw them through and through. On this the Sama- 
ritans throw oft' the mask, and become open enemies, 
frustrate the operations of the Jews through the 
reigns of two Persian kings, and are only effectually 
silenced in the reign of Darius Hystaspis, B.C. 519. 

The feud, thus unhappily begun, giew year by 
year more inveterate. It is probable, too, that the 
more the Samaritans detached themselves from idols, 
and became devoted exclusively to a sort of worship 
of Jehovah, the more they resented the contempt 
with which the Jews treated their offers of fra- 
ternization. Matters at length came to a climax. 
About B.C. 409, a certain Manasseh, a man of 
priestly lineage, on being expelled from Jerusalem 
by Xehemiah for an imlawful marriage, obtained 
permission from the Persian king of his day, Darius 
Nothus, to build a temple on Mount Gerizim, for 
the Samaritans, with whom he had found refuge. 
The only thing wanted to crystallise the opposition 
between the two races, viz., a rallying point for 
schismatical worship, being now obtained, their ani- 
mosity became more intense than ever. The Sama- 
ritans are said to have done everything in their power 
to annoy the Jews. They would refuse hospitality 
to pilgrims on their road to Jerusalem, as in our 
Lord's case. They would even waylay them in 
their journey (Joseph. Atit. xx. 6, §1); and many 
were compelled through fear to take the longer 
route by the east of Jordan. Certain Samaritans 
were said to have once penetrated into the Temple 
of Jerusalem, and to have defiled it by scattering 
dead men's bones on the sacred pavement [Ant. 
xviii. 2, §2). We are told too of a strange 
piece of mockery which must have been especially 
resented. It was the custom of the Jews ' to com- 
municate to their brethren still in Babylon the exact 
day and hour of the rising of the paschal moon, by 
beacon-fires commencing from Mount Olivet, and 
flashing forward from hill to hill until they were 
mirrored in the Euphrates. So the Greek poet 
represents Agamemnon as conveying the news of 
Troy's capture to the anxious watchers at M3-cenae. 
Those who " sat by the waters of Babylon " looked 
for this signal with much interest. It enabled them 
to share in the devotions of those who were in their 
father-land, and it proved to them that they were 
not forgotten. The Samaritans thought scorn of 
these feelings, and would not unfrequently deceive 
and disappoint them, by kindling a rival flame and 
perplexing the watchers on the mountains.^ Their 

a " This fact," says Dr. Trench, " is mentioned by Ma- 
krizi (see Dc Sacy's direst. Arabe, n. 159), who affirms 
that it was this which put the .Jews on making accurate 



own temple on Gerizim they considered to be much 
superior to that at Jerusalem. There they sacri- 
ficed a passov(!r. Towards the mountain, even after 
the temple on it had fallen, wherever they were, 
they directed their worship. To their copy of the 
Law they arrogated an antiquity and authority 
greater than attached to any copy in the possession 
of the Jews. The Law (i. e. the five books of Moses) 
was their sole code ; for they rejected every other 
book in the Jewish canon. And they professed to 
observe it better than did the Jews themselves, 
■ employing the expression not unfiequently, " The 
Jews indeed do so and so ; but we, observing the 
letter of the Law, do otherwise." 

The Jews, on the other hand, were not more 
conciliatory in their treatment of the Samaritans. 
The copy of the Law possessed by that people they 
declared to be the legacy of an apostate (Manasseh), 
and cast grave suspicions upon its genuineness. 
Certain other Jewish renegades had from time to 
time taken refuge with the Samaritans. Hence, by 
degrees, the Samaritans claimed to partake of Jewish 
blood, especially if doing so happened to suit their 
interest (Joseph. Ant. xi. 8, §6; ix. 14, §3). A 
remarkable instance of this is exhibited in a request 
which they made to Alexander the Great, about 
B.C. 332. They desired to be excused payment of 
tribute in the Sabbatical year, on the plea that as 
true Israelites, descendants of Ephraim and Ma- 
nasseh, sons of Joseph, they refrained from culti- 
vating their land in that year. Alexander, on cross- 
questioning them, discovered the hoUowness of their 
pretensions. (They were greatly disconcerted at 
their failure, and their dissatisfiiction probably led 
to the conduct which induced Alexander to besiege 
and destroy the city of Samaria. Shechem was 
indeed their metropolis, but the destruction of Sa- 
maria seems to have satisfied Alexaniler.) Another 
instance of claim to Jewish descent appears in 
the words of the woman of Samai'ia to our Lord, 
John iv. 12, " Art Thou greater than our father 
Jacob, who gave us the well ?" A question which 
she puts without recollecting that she had just 
before strongly contrasted the Jews and the Sama- 
ritans. Very far were the Jews from admitting 
this claim to consanguinity on the part of these 
people. They were ever reminding them that they 
were after all mere Cuthaeans, mere strangers from 
Assyi'ia. They accused them of worshipping the 
idol-gods buned long ago under the oak of Shechem 
(Gen. xxxv. 4). They would have no dealings with 
them that they could possibly avoid.'' " Thou art a 
Samaritan and hast a devil," was the mode in which 
tliey expressed themselves wlien at a loss for a bitter 
reproach. Every thing that a Samaritan had touched 
was as swine's flesh to them. The Samaritan was 
publicly cursed in their synagogues — could not be 
adduced as a, witness in the Jewish courts — could 
not be admitted to any sort of proselytism — and 
was thus, so far as the Jew could aft'cct his position, 
excluded from lidpe of eternal life. The traditional 
hatred in which the Jew held him is expressed in 
Ecclus. 1. 25, 26, " Tiiere be two manner of nations 
which my heart abhorreth, and the third is no 
nation : they that sit on the mountain of Samaria ; 

calculations to determine the moment of tlie new moon's 
appearance (comp. SchoettKen's Um: Ilch. i. .'544)." 

b This prejudice liad, of course, sometimes to give way 
to necessity, for the disciples had gone to Sycliar to buy 
food, while our Lord was talking witli the \\xinKUi of Sa- 
maria by the well iifils suburl) (John iv. K). And from 
Luke ix. 02, wt' Iciirii I hat the disciples wint liofore our 


and they that dwell among the Philistines; and 
that foolish people that dwell in Sichem." And so 
long was it before such a temper could be banished 
from the .Jewish mind, that we find even the 
Apostles believing that an inhospitable slight shown 
by a Samaritan village to Christ would be not unduly 
avenged by calling down fire from heaven. 

" Ye know not what spirit ye are of," .said the 
large-hearted Son of Man, and we find Him on no 
one occasion uttering anything to the disparagement 
of the Samaritans. His words, however, and the 
records of His ministrations confirm most thoroughly 
the view which has been taken above, that the 
Samaritans were not Jews. At the first sending 
forth of the Twelve (Matt. x. 5, 6) He charges 
them, " Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and 
into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not, but 
go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." 
So again, in His final address to them on Mount 
Olivet, " Ye shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem 
and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the 
uttermost part of the earth" (Acts i. 8). So the 
nine unthankful lepers, Jews, were contrasted by 
Him with the tenth leper, the thankful stranger 
(aWoyevfis)^ who was a Samaritan. So, in His 
well-known parable, a merciful Samaiitan is con- 
trasted vi^ith the unmerciful priest and Levite. And 
the very worship of the two races is described by 
Him as ditferent in character. " Ye worship ye 
know not what," this is said of the Samaritans: 
" We know what we worship, for salvation is of 
the Jews" (John iv. 22). 

Such were the Samaritans of our Lord's day : a 
people distinct from the Jews, though lying in the 
very midst of the Jews ; a ))eople presei'viug their 
identity, though seven centuries had rolled away 
since they haii been brought from Assyria by Esar- 
haddon, and though they had abandoned their poly- 
theism for a sort of ultra Mosaicism ; a peo])le, who— 
though their limits had been gradually contracted, 
and the rallying place of their religion on Mount 
Gerizim had been destroyed one hundred and sixty 
years before by John Hyrcanus (B.C. 130), and 
though Samaria (the city) had been again and 
again destroyed, and though their teiTitory had 
been the battle-field of Syria and Egypt — still ])re- 
served their nationality, still woi'shipped from 
Shechem and their other impoverished settlements 
towards their sacred hill ; still retained their na- 
tionality, and could not coalesce with the Jews: 

6^0? t' aXcKJid t' ey\ea5 ravToJ kut€1, 
SLxo<rTaTovvT' av ov <j>C\(o^ n-potrei/ceVoij. 

Not indeed that we must suppose that the whole of 
the country called in our Lord's time Samaria, was 
in the possession of the Cuthaean Samaritans, or that 
it had ever been so. " Samaria," says Josephus, 
(i>. /. iii. 3,. §4) " lies between Judaea and Galilee. 
It commences from a village called Ginaea {Jenhi), 
on the great plain (that of Esdraelon), and extends 
to the toparchy of Acrabatta," in the lower part of 
tlie territory of Ephraim. These points, indicating 
the extreme noithern and the extreme southein 
[larallels of latitude between which Samaria was 
situated, enable us to fix its boundaries with tole- 

Lord at His command into a certain village of the 
Samaritans "to make ready" for Him. Unless, indeed 
(though, as we see on both occasions, our Loiii's influ- 
ence over them was not yet complete), we are to attribute 
tliis partial aliandomnent of their ordinary scruples to 
tiie change which His example had already wrought in 


rable certainty. It was bounded northward by tlie 

range of hills which commences at iMount Carmel 

on the west, and, after making a bend to the soutli- 

west, runs almost due east to the valley of the 

Jordan, forming the southern border of the plain ot 

Esdi-aelon. It touched towards the sontli, as near!}' 

as possible, the northern limits of Benjamin. Thus 

it comprehended the ancient territory of Ephraim, 

and of those Manassites who were west of Jordan. 

" Its character," Josephus continues, " is in no 

respect ditferent from that cf Judaea. Both abound 

in mountains and plains, and are suited for agricul- 
ture, and productive, wooded, and full of fruits 
botli wild and cultivated. They are not abundantly 
watered ; but much rain falls there. The springs 
are of an exceedingly sweet taste ; and, on account 
of the quantity of good grass, the aittle there pro- 
duce more milk than elsewhere. But the best 
pi'oof of their richness and fertility is that both are 
tliickly populated." The accounts of modern tra- 
vellers confirm this description by the Jewish his- 
torian of the " good land " which was allotted to 
that powerful portion of the house of Joseph which 
crossed the Jordan, on the first division of the ter- 
ritory. The Cuthaean Samaritans, however, pos- 
sessed only a few towns and villages of this large 
area, and these, lay almost together in the centre of 
the district. Shechem or Sychar (as it was con- 
temptuously designated) was their chief settlement, 
even before Alexander the Great destroyed Samaria, 
probably because it lay almost close to Mount Ge- 

rizim. Afterwards it became more prominently so, I the purely Assyrian origin of the New Samaritans, 
and there, on the destruction of the Temple on is that of Suicer, Reland, Hammond, Drusius in the 
Gerizim, by John Hyrcanus (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 9, (7/'!'iiC2/S'acr«, Maldonatus, Hengstenberg, Havernick, 
§1), they built themselves a temple. The modern Robinson, and Dean Trench. The reader is referred 
representative of Shechem is Nablus, a corrup- to the very clear but too brief discussion of the 
tion of Neapolis, or the " Kew Town," built by subject by the last mentioned learned writer, in 

dosian Code. This was so severely punished, that 
they sank into an obscurity, which, though they 
are just noticed by travellers of the twelfth and 
fourteenth centuries, was scarcely broken until the 
sixteenth century. In the latter half of that cen- 
tury a correspondence with them was commenced 
by Josejjh Scaliger. (De Sacy has edited two of 
their letters to that eminent scholar.) Job Ludolf 
received a letter from them, in the latter half of the 
next century. These three letters are to be found in 
Eichhorn's Repertoriuin fur Bihlisclie vnd Morgen- 
Idndische Litteratur, vol. xiii. They are of great 
archaeological interest, and enter very minutely into 
the observances of the Samai-itan ritual. Among 
other points worthy of notice in them is the incon- 
sistency displayed by the wiiters in valuing them- 
selves on not being Jews, and yet claiming to be 
descendants of Joseph. See also De Sacy's Cor- 
respondance dcs Sainaritains, &c., in Koikes et 
Extr. des MSS. de la Biblioth. du Eoi, &c., vol. 
xii. And, for more modern accounts of the people 
themselves, Robinson's Biblical Researches, ii. 280- 
311; iii. 129-30; Wilson's Lands of the Bible, 
ii. 46-78 ; Van de Velde's Stfria and Palestine, ii. 
296 seq. ; Stanley's Sinai and Palestine, p. 240 ; 
Rogers' Notices of the Modem Samaritans, p. 25; 
Grove's account of their Day of Atonement in 
Vacation Tourists for 1861 ; and Dr. Stanley's, of 
their Passover, in his Lectures on the Jewish Church, 
App. iii. 

The view maintained in the above remai-ks, as to 

Vespasian a little to the west of the older town which 
was then ruined. At Nablus the Samaritans have 
still a settlement, consisting of about 200 persons. 
Yet they observe the Law, and celebrate the Passover 
on a sacred spot on ]Mount Gerizim, with an exact- 
ness of minute ceremonial which the Jews them- 
selves have long intermitted : 

" Quanquam diruta, servat 
Ignem Trojanum, et Vestam edit Alba minorem." 
The Samaritans were very troublesome both to 
their Jewish neighbours and to their Roman masters, 
in the first century, A.D. Pilate chastised them with 
a severity which led to his own downfall (Joseph. 
Ant. xviii. 4, §1), and a slaughter of 10,600 of 
them took place under Vespasian (5. /. iii. 7, §32). 
In spite of these reverses they increased greatly in 
numbers towards its termination, and appear to 
have grown into importance under Dositheus, who 
was probably an apostate Jew. Epiphanius {adv. 
Haereses, lib. i.), in the fourth century, considers 
them to be the cliief and most dangerous adver- 
saries of Christianity, and he enumei'ates the several 
sects into which they had by that time divided 
themselves. They were popularly, and even by 
some of the Fathers, confounded with the Jews, in- 
somuch that a legal interpretation of the Gospel 
was described as a tendency to 2a^ap€iTt<r/Aos or 
'lovSaXtT^iSs. This confusion, however, did not 
extend to an identification of the two races. It was 
simply an assertion that their extreme opinions were 
identical. And previously to an outrage which 
they committed on the Christians at Neapolis in the 
reign of Zeno, towards the end of the fifth century, 
the distinction between them and tiie Jews was 
sufficiently known, and even recognised in the Theo- 
VOL. ir. 

his Parables, pp. 310, 311, and to the authori- 
ties, especially De Sacy, which are there quoted. 
There is no doubt in the world that it was the 
ancient view. We have seen what Josephus said, 
and Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and 
Theodoret, say the same thing. Socrates, it must 
be admitted, calls the Samaritans aircJcrx'T/uct 'lov- 
Saioji', but he stands almost alone among tlie 
ancients in making this assertion. Origen and 
Cyril indeed both mention their claim to descent 
from Joseph, as evidenced in the statement of the 
woman at tlie well, but mention it only to declare 
it unfounded. Others, as Winer, Dollinger, and 
Dr. Davidson, have held a different view, which 
may be expressed thus in Dollinger's own words : 
" In the northern part of the Promised Land (as 
opposed to Judaea proper) there grew up a nfingled 
race which drew its origin from the remnant of the 
Israelites who were lelt behind in the country on 
the removal of the Ten Tribes, and also from the 
heathen colonists who were transplanted into the 
cities of Israel. Their religion was as hybrid as 
their extraction : they worshipped Jehovah, but, in 
addition to Him, also the heathen idols of Phoenician 
origin which they had brought from their native 
land" {Heidenthum und Judenthum, p. 739, §7). 
If the words of Scripture are to be taken alone, it 
does not appear how this view is to be maintained. 
At any rate, as Drusius observes, the only mixture 
was that of Jewish apostate fugitives, long after 
Esarhaddon's colonization, not at the time of the 
colonization. But modern as this view is, it has 
tor some years been the jiopular one, and even Dr. 
Staulev seems, though quite incidentally, to have 
admitted it (S. cj- P. 240). He does not, however, 

4 B 


entei' upon its defence. Mr. Grove is also in favour 
of it. See his notice already mentioned. 

The authority due to the copy of the Law possessed 
by the Samaritans, and the detemiination whether 
the Samaritan reading of Deut. xxvii. 4, Gerizim, 
or that of the Hebrew, Ebal, is to be preferred, are 
discussed in the next article. [See Samaritan 
Pentateuch ; Ebal ; Gerizim ; Shechem ; 
SiCHEM ; Sychar.] [J. A. H.] 

sion of the commonly received Hebrew Text of the 
l^Iosaic, in use with the Samaritans, and 
written in the ancient Hebrew (Z'firj), or so-called 
Samaritan chaiacter." This recension is found 
vaguely quoted by some of the eai'ly Fathers of the 
Church, under the name of "UaXawrarov '^fipa'i- 
Khv rh Trapa Sa^apetTaTs," in contradistinction to 
the "'E^pa'CKhv rb irapa 'lovSaiois •," fuither, as 
" Samaritanorum Voluniina," &c. Thus Origen on 
Num. xiii. !,...."& Kot aiira 4k tovtwv 
'SafiapeiTcHv 'Efipa'iKOV fxeTe^aAo/xev ;" and on 
Num. xxi. 13, . . . " & fV fi6vois rHv 'S.afj.apeirwv 
tvpofiev," &c. Jerome, Prol. to Kings : "Samaritaui 
etiam Pentateuchum Jloysis totidem (? 22, like the 
" Hebrews, Syrians and Chaldaeans") litteris habent, 
figuris tautum et apicibus disci'epantes." Also on Gal. 
iii. 10, " quam ob causam " — (viz. ''ETriKaTaparos 
iras ts ovK ifx/xivfi iu iraffi tois yeypafx/xevois, 
being quoted there from Deut. xxvii. 26, where the 
Masoretic text has only ON Q'^p'' H? Iti'N "IIIX 
nXTH minn ''^3^ — "cursed be he that contirmeth 
not"* the words of this Law to do them;" while the 
LXX. reads ttus avdpw-KOS . . Traeri ro7s \6yois) 
— " quam ob causam Samaritanornm Hehraea vo- 
lumina relegens invem 73 scriptum esse ;" and he 
forthwith charges the Jews with having deliberately 

talien out the 73, because they did not wish to be 
bound individually to all the ordinances : forgetting 
at the same time that this same 73 occurs in the 
very next chapter of the ^Masoretic text (Deut. xxviii. 
15): — " All h\s commandments and his statutes." 
Eusebius of Caesaiea observes that the LXX. and 
the Sam. Pent, agree against the Received Text in 
the number of years from the Deluge to Abraham. 
Cyril of Alexandria speaks of certain words (Gen. 
iv. 8), wanting in the Hebrew, but found in the Sa- 
maritan. The same remark is made by Procopius 
of Gaza with respect to Deut. i. 6; Num. x. 10, 
X. 9, &c. Other passages are noticed by Diodorus, 
the Greek Scholiast, &c. The Talmud, on the other 
hand, mentions the Sam. Pent, distinctly and con- 
temptuously as a clumsily forged record : " You 
have falsified" your Feidateuch," said R. Eliezer b. 
Shimon to the Samaritan scribes, with reference to 
a passage in Deut. xi. 30, where the well-undeistood 
word Shechem was gratuitously inserted after " the 
plains of Moreh," — "and you have not profited 
aught by it" (comp. Jer. s'otah 21 b, cf. 17 ; Babli 
33 b). On another occasion they are ridiculed on 
account of their ignorance of one of the simplest rules 
of Hebrew Grammar, displayed in their Pentateuch ; 
viz. the use of the n lorale (unknown, however, 
according to Jer. Meg. 6, 2, also to the people of 
Jerusalem). " Wito has caused you to blunder f 
said R. Shimon b. Eliezer to them ; i-efening to their 

" nNflu*^. I'yi. nnny 3n3, as distinguished 

from i<^fy. n''ni'w-'N 303- Comp. Synb Zl b, Jer. 
Meg. 5, 2 ; Tosifia .'Synli. 4 ; Synlioilr. 22 a, Meg. Jer. 
1, 9, Sola Jer. 7, 2, sri. 


abolition of the Mosaic ordinance of marrying the 
deceased brother's wife (Deut. x.xv. 5 ff.), — through 
a misinterpretation of the passage in question, which 
enjoins that the wife ot the dead man shall not be 
"without" to a stranger, but that the brother 
should marry her: they, however, taking nVinn 
(=',>in?) to be an epithet of ntJ'K, " wife," trans- 
lated " the outer wife," i. e. the betrothed only 
{Jer. Jebam. 3, 2, Ber. R., &c.). 

Down to within the last two hundred and fifty 
years, however, no copy of this divergent Code of 
Laws had reached Europe, and it began to be pro- 
nounced a fiction, and the plain words of the Church- 
Fathers — the better known authorities — who quoted 
it, were subjected to subtle interpretations. Sud- 
denly, in 1616, Pietro dclla Valle, one of the first dis- 
coverers also of the Cuneiform inscriptions, acquired 
a complete Codex from the Samaritans in Damascus. 
In 1623 it was presented by Achille Harley de Sancy 
to the Library of the Oratory in Paris, and in 1628 
thei;e appeared a brief description of it by J. Mo- 
rinus in his preface to the Roman text of the LXX. 
Thi'ee years later, shortly before it was published 
in the Paris Polyglott, — whence it was copied, with 
few emendations from other codices, by Walton, — 
Morinus, the first editor, wrote his Exercitationes 
Ecclesiasticae in utrumque Samaritanorum Penta- 
teuchum, in which he pronounced the newly found 
Codex, with all its innumeiable Variants from the 
Masoretic text, to be infinitely superior to the 
latter : in fact, the unconditional and speedy emen- 
dation of the Received Text thereby was urged most 
authoritatively. And now the impulse was given 
to one of the fiercest and most barren literal y and 
theological conti-oversies : of which more anon. Be- 
tween 1620 and 1630 six additional copies, partly 
complete, partly incomplete, were acquired by 
Ussher : five of which he deposited in English 
libraries, while one was sent to De Dieu, and has 
disappeared mysteriously. Another Code.x, now in 
the Ambrosian Library at Milan, was brought to 
Italy in 1621. Peiresc procured two more, one of 
which was placed in the Royal Library of Paris, and 
one in the Barbeiini at Rome. Thus the number of 
MSS. in Europe gradually grew to sixteen. During 
the present century another, but very fragmentary 
copy, was acquired by the Gottia Library. A cojiy 
of the entire ?j Pentateuch, with Targum (? Sam. 
Version), in parallel columns, 4to., on parchment, 
was brought from Ndblus by Mr. Grove in 1861, 
for the Count of Paris, in whose library it is. 
Single portions of the Sam. Pent., in a more or 
less dettictive state, are now of no rare occuiTence 
in Europe. 

Respecting the external condition of these MSS., 
it may be observed that their sizes vary fi-om 12mo. 
to folio, and that no scroll, such as the Jews and the 
Samaritans use in their synagogues, is to be found 
among them. The letters, which are of a size cor- 
responding to that of the book, exhibit none of tho>e 
varieties of shape so frequent in the Masor. Text ; 
such as majuscules, minuscules, suspended, inverted 
letters, &c. Their material is vellum or cotton- 
pnper ; the ink used is black in all cases save the 
scroll used by the Samaritans at Ndblus, the letters 
of which are in gold. There are neither vowels, 

b The A. v., following the LXX, and perhaps Lulhcr, 
has inserted the word all. 


accents, nor diacritical points. The individual words 
are separated from each other by a dot. Greater 
or smaller divisions of the text are marked by two 
dots placed one above the other, and by an asterisk. 
A small line above a consonant indicates a peculiar 
meaning of the word, an unusual form, a passive, 


and the like : it is, in fact, a contrivance to bespeak 
attention."* The whole Pentateuch is divided into 
nine hundred and sixty-four pai'agraphs, or Kazzin, 
the termination of which is indicated by these figures, 
= , ,•.,■ or <. At the end of each book the numbev 
of its divisions is stated thus : — 

(250) 3") QiJIXhD l^Vp : p£i'N"in -|3D r\]r\ [Masoret. Cod., 

(200) DTix?:? '■ ■'Ji^'n " " [ 

(130) QiK'i'pc") nxD ,. »t^"''?trn .. .. C 

(218) n"! ■-> " ^ymn .. .. [ 

(166) 1D1-P ■' '•C'Dnn .. .. C 

12 Sidras (Parshioth), 50 Chapters]. 
11 „ 40 „ ] 

10 „ 27 „ ] 

10 „ 36 „ ] 

11 .. 34 „ ] 

The Sam. Pentateuch is halved in Lev. vii. 15 
(viii. 8, in Hebrew Text), where the words "Middle 
of the Thoiah " « are found. At the end of each JIS. 
tlic yeai- of the copying, the name of the scribe, and 
also that of the proprietor, are usually stated. Yet 
their dates are not always trustworthy when given, 
and vei-y difficult to be conjectured when entirely 
omitted, since the Samaritan lettei's afibrd no internal 
evidence of the period in which they were written. 
To none of the MSS., however, which have as yet 
reached Europe, can be assigned a higher date than 
the 10th Christian century. The scroll used in 
Nahlus bears — so the Samaritans pretend — the fol- 
lowing inscription : — " I, Abisha, son of, 
son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the Priest, — upon 
them be the Grace of Jehovah ! To His honour 
have I written this Holy Law at the entrance of 
the Tabernacle of Testimony on the Mount Gerizim, 
Beth El, in the thirteenth year of the taking pos- 
session of the Land of Canaan, and all its boundaries 
around it, by theChildi-en of Israel. I praise Jeho- 
vah." (Letter of Meshalmah b. Ab Sechuah, Cod. 
19,791, Add. MSS. Brit. Mus. Comp. Epist. Sam. 
Sichemitarum ad Johum Ludolphion, Cizae, 1688 ; 
Antiq. Eccl. Orient, p. 123 ; Huntingtoni Epist. 
pp. 49, 56 ; Eichhorn's Repertorimii f. bihl. mid 
morg. Lit., tom. ix., &c.) But no European' has 
ever succeeded in finding it in this scroll, however 
great the pains be.stowed upon the search (coniji. 
Eichhorn, Einleit. ii. 132) ; and even if it had been 
found, it would not have deserved the sliglitest 

We have briefly stated above that the Exercita- 
tiones of Morinus, which placed the Samaritan Pen- 
tateuch far above the Picceived Text in point of ge- 
nuineness, — partly on account of its agi'eeing in 
many places with the Septuagint, and partly on 
account of its superior " lucidity and hannony," — 
excited and kept up for nearly two hundred years one 
of the most extraordinary controversies on record. 
Characteristically enough, however, this was set at 
rest once for all by the very first systematic inves- 
tigation of the point at issue. It would now appear 
as if the unquestioning rapture with which every 
new literary discovery was formerly hailed, the in- 
nate animosity against the Masoretic (Jewish 'j 'I'ext, 
the general preference for the LXX., the defective 
stiite of Semitic studies, — as if, we say, all these put 

d n^n and npn, ny and ny, inn and "inn. 

'PN and by, h^ii^ and h^ii\ ir\p\ and xipv 
t^ and l^, the suffi.\cs at the end of a word, the p with- 
out a dagGsh, &c., are thus pointed out to the reader. 

f It would appear, however (sec Archdeacon Tattam's 
notice in the J 'artlienmi, Xo. 4, May 24, 1SG2), that Mr. 
Levysolm. a person lately attached to the ilussian staff in 

together were not sufficient to account for the phe- 
nomenon that men of any critical acumen could ibi- 
one moment not only place the Sam. Pent, on a par 
•with the Masoretic Text, but even raise it, uncon- 
ditionally, far above it. There was indeed another 
cause at woik, especially in the first period of the dis- 
pute : it was a controversial spirit which prompted 
Morinus and hLs followers, Cappellus and others, to 
prove to the Reformers what kind of value was to 
be attached to their authority : the I'eceived ibrm of 
the Bible, upon which and which alone they pro- 
fessed to take their stand ; — it was now evident that 
nothing short of the Divine Spirit, under the influ- 
ence and inspiration of which the Scriptures were 
interpreted and e.xpounded by the Roman. Church, 
could be relied upon. On the- other hand, most of 
the " Antimorinians" — De Muys, Hottinger, St. 
Blorinus, Buxtorf, Fuller, Leusden, Pfeifl'ei-, &c. — ■ 
instead of patiently and critically examining the 
subject and refuting their adversaries by arguments 
which were within their reach, as tliey aie witliin 
ours, directed their attacks against the persons of 
the Morinians, and thus their misguided zeal left 
the question of the superiority of the New Document 
over the Old where they found it. Of higher value 
were, it is true, the labours of Simon, Le Clerc, 
Walton, &c., at a later pei'iod, who proceeded 
eclectically, rejecting many readings, and adoptina; 
others which seemed prefeiable to those of the Old 
Text. Houbigant, however, with unexampled igno- 
rance and obstinacy, i-eturned to Morinus' fii-st no- 
tion — already generally abandoned — of the, unques- 
tionable and thorough superiority. He, again, was 
followed more or less closely by Kennicott, Al. a St. 
Aquilino, Lobstein, Geddes, and others. The discu.s- 
sion was taken up once more on the other side, 
chiefly by Ravius, who succeeded in finally dispo.sing 
of this point of the superiority {Exercitt. Fhil. in 
Houhig. Prol. Lugd. Bat. 1755). It was from his 
day forward allowed, almost on all hands, that the 
•j\Iasoretic Text was the genuine one, but that in 
doubtful cases, when theSamaritan had an " unques- 
tionably clearer " reading, this was to be adojited, 
since a certain amount of value, however limited, 
did attach to it. Michaelis, Eichhorn, Bertholdt. 
Jahn, and the majoiity of modern critics, adhered 
to this opinion. Here the matter rested until 1815, 
when Gesenius {De Pent. Sain. Originc, Indole, 

Jerusalem, /las found the inscription in question "going 
through the middle of the bodj' of the Te.\t of the Deca- 
logue, and extending through three columns." Consider- 
ing that the Samaritans themselves told Huntington, 
" that this inscription had been in their scroll once, but 
must have been erased by some wicked hand," tliij 
startling piece of information must be received with 
extreme caution : — no less so than the other more or less 
vague statements with respect to the labours and pre- 
tended discoveries of Mr. Levvsohii. See note, p. 1113. 

4 B li 


et Auctoritate) abolished tl;e remnant of the 
authority of the Sam. Pent. So masterly, lucid, 
and clear are his arguments and his proofs, that 
there has been and will be no fuither question as 
to the absence ot';dl value in this Recension, and in 
its pretended emendations. In fact, a glance at the 
systematic arrangement of the variants, of which 
he first of all bethought himself, is quite sufficient 
to convince the J eadei- at once that they are for the 
most put mere blundeis, arising fjom an imperfect 
knowledge of the fiist elements of grammai- and 
exegesis. That others owe their existence to a studied 
design of conforming ceitiiiii passages to the Sama- 
ritiin mode of thought, speech, and faith — moj e 
especiallv to show that the Mount Gerizim, upon 
which their tenijile stood, was the spot chosen and 
indiciited by God to Moses as the one upon which 
He desired to be worshipped. e Finally, that others 
are due to a tendency towards removing, as well as 
linguistic shortcomings would allow, all that seemed 
obscure or in any way doubtful, and towards 
titling up all apparent imperfections : — either by 
lepetitions or b\' means of newly-invented and 
badly-fitting words and phrases, it must, how- 
ever, be premised that, except two alterations (Ex. 
xiii. 7, where the Sam, reads " Six days shalt 
thou eat unleavened bread," instead of the received 
" Seven days," and the change of the word nTin, 
" There shall not be," into ITTin, " lice," Deut. 
xxiii. 18), the Mosaic laws and ordinances them- 
selves are nowhere tampered with. 

We will now proceed to lay specimens of these 
once so highly prized variants before the reader, in 
order that he may judge for himself. We shall 
follow in this the commonly received arrangement 

B For "in3S "He will elect" (the spot), the Sam. 
always puts "Ifl^' " He has elected" (viz. Gerizim). See 

*> □''"lyC' "n"* niust be a misprint. 

' Tliiis D^ is found in the Samar. for Dy of the Ma- 

soretic T.; ni for T\'-'i 1^ fur 1" ; DrT'^X for Oi]/?^ ' 
riTllXJD fo"" m'SD' ^<^- '■ sometimes a 1 is put even 
where the Heb. 1'. has, in accordance with the gram- 
matical rules, only a short vowel or a sheva: — VJDIH '^ 

found for v:pii ; nv^iK for nv^N*. 
" i3n:. on, "pxri, become i:n::s, non. rh^r\- 

m Tjni becomes TiJOl ! DD^I is emendated into 
rillO^I ; ^^'' (verb n"?) into nNT" ; 'he final } —of the 
3rd pers. fem. plur. fut. into HJ . 

° *J31E^is shortened into pV^. UTTI into J")''!!- 

<• Masculine are made the words Qn? (Gen. xlix. 20) 
"lytJ' (Deut. XV. 7, &c.), nJilD (('en. x.\.\h. 9); feminine 
the words t»-ix (fi^^- xiii. 6), "ry] (Deut. xxviii. 25), 
K'SJ (Gen. xlvi. 25, &c.) ; wherever the word lyj occurs 
in the sense of " girl," a |~j is added at the end (Gen. xxiv. 
14, &c.). 

■" 31t^'^ Tl'Pn IIIK'^V " the waters returned conti- 
niuUly," is transformed into ll"*! ID^H IIID'^V " they 
returned, they went and they returned" (Gen. viii. 3). 
Where the infin. is used as an adverb, e. g. pmH (Gen. 
xxi. 16), " far off," it is altered into np^mHi " sh'' "'^^t 
far awiy," which renders the passage almosi unintelligible. 

•) Dny for Q-^iy (Gen. iii. Hi, 11); 1^' for n"?-) (xi. 
Sf^) ; DmD\* for the collective 112^* (.nv. in); mOX' 
" female servants," for niilDN i^^- t**) ; r\TWl12 N"l'l 
ilDID O for the adverbial 3VJ (^''X- 15); TmH f'"' 
Q'n*"12 (Ex. xxvi. 26, making it depend from ^^i?); 
DLJ'?3, in the unusual sense of "from if (comp. 1 K. xvil. 


of Gesenius, who divides all these readings into eight 
classes ; to which, as we shall afterwards show, 
Frankel has suggested the addition of two or 
three others, while Kirchheim (in his Hebrew 
work JTlDIE^ ''Dn3} enumerates thirteen,'' which 
we will naine hereafter. 

1. The first class, then, consists of readings by 
which emendations of a grammaticjil nature have 
been attempted. 

(a.) The quiescent letters, or so-called matres 
lectionis, are supplied.' 

(6.) The more poetical forms of the pronouns, 
probably less known to the Sam., are alteied into 
the more common ones.'' 

(c.) The -same propensity foi- completing appa- 
rently incomplete forms is noticeable in the flexion 
of the verbs. The apocopated or short future is 
altered into the regular future."" 

{d.\ On the other hand thepaiagogical letters 1 and 
*' at the end of nouns, are almost univer.sally stiuck 
out by the Sam. coirector ;° and, in the ignorance 
of the existence of nouns of a common gender, he 
has given them gendere according to his fancy .<> 

(e.) The infin. absol. is, in the quaintest manner- 
possible, reduced to the form of the finite veib.P 

For obsolete or rare forms, the modern and more 
common ones have been substituted in a great num- 
ber of places. 1 

2. The second class of variants consists of glosses 
and interpretations received into the text : glosses, 
moreover, in which the Sam. not unfVequently 
coincides with the LXX., and which are in many 
cases evidently derived by both from some ancient 

3. The third class e.xhibits conjectural emen- 

13), Is altered into n3?3D (Lev. ii. 2) ; plTl 's wrongly 

put for *n (3rd p. s. m. of ^ifl == /ff^») ; IJ?. tlie obsolete 
form, is replaced by the more recent "l^J? (Xum. xxi. 15) ; 
the unusual fem. termination ^_- (comp. 70''3N) 
?"'J''3X> ii^ elongated into 71^- ; inK' 's the emendation 
for Vt^* (Deut. xxii. 1); 1-)n for "^T^Tl (Rent, xxxiii. 
15), etc. 

' nCJ'Nl tJ'^J^' " "13" *"d woman," used by Gen. vii. 2 
of aniQials, is changed into n3pj1 "IDT- " "'^''^ ""'i 
female;" VK3t^' C^i^"- ^'''^'- ^f*)' " liis haters," becomes 
"ll^l-ljij, "his enemies;" for nQ (indefin.) is substituted 
riDINiOi X"l^ "he will see, choose," is amplitied by a 
i'7, " for himself ;" "lilil "liin is transformed iiUo "Ijn 
11 J" "ID'S (Lev. xvii. 10); □y'p3 ^X 'h'pX "Ij^'] 
(Xum xxiii. 4), " And God met Bileam," becomes with 
the '3 nX ''pX "IX'PO X iD"'1. " and an Angel 
of the Lord found iiileam ; ' nt^'XH "PV (Gen. xx. 3;, 
" for the woman," is amplified in so ni^'XH miX 7^. 
" for the sake of the woman " fur ^13^71, from "133 
(obsol., comp. tXSo)' i^ P**' 'T337' " those that are be- 
fore me," in contradistinction to " those who will come 
after me ;" "lypll, " and she emptied" (her pitcher into 
the trough. Gen. xxiv. 20), has made room for *7^TiriV 
"and she took down;' HOEJ* 'myi3, "^ ^^''1 "><'<'t 
there" (.\. V., Ex. xxix. 43), is made Qj;' ^^lt^m3• 
"I shall be [searched] found there;" Num. xxxi. 15, 
before the words T^l'pl "pD Qn'''nn. " H>rve you spared 
the life of every ftmalc V a n?37, " Why," is inserted 
(lAX.); for XIpN niH'' DK' O C^*"'. xxxii. 3), 
" If 1 call the name of Jehovah," the Sam. has U^1< 
" In the name," etc. 


datioiis — sometimes tar from happy — of real or 
imaginary difficulties in the Masoretic text.' 

4. The fourth class exhibits readings in which a\> 
parent deficiencies have been corrected or supplied 
from paiallel passages in the common te.'it. Gen. 
-wiii. '29, oO, for " 1 shall not do it," « " 1 shall not 
destroy" " is substituted fiom Gen. xviii. 28, 31, 3'2. 
Gen xxxvii. 4, VHX, " his brethren," is re])laced by 
V33, " his sons," from the former verse. One of the 
most curious specimens of the endeavours of the 
Samaritan Codex to render the readings as smooth 
and consistent as possible, is its uniform spelling of 
])iouer nouns like 110*. Jethro, occasionally spelt 
"in^ in the Hebrew text, Moses' tiither-in-law — a 
man who, according to the Midrash (Sifri), had no 
less than seve7i names ; yCJ'in'* (Jehoshua), into 
which form it corrects the shorter yjj'in (Hoshea) 
when it occurs in the Masoretic Codex. More fie- 
quent still are the additions of single words and 
short phrases inseiled from parallel passages, where 
the Hebrew text appe;u-ed too concise:* — unneces- 
sai-y, often excessively absurd interpolations. 

5. The ffth class is an extension of the one im- 
mediately preceding, and comprises larger phrases, 
additions, and lepetitions from parallel passages. 
Whenever anything is mentioned as having been 
done or said previously by Moses, or wheie a com- 
mand of God is related as being executed, the 
whole speech bearing upon it is repeated again at 
tull length. These tedious and always su]perfluous 
repetitions are most frequent in Exodus, both in the 
record of the plagues and in the many interpola- 
tions from Deutejonomy. 

6. To the Sixi/i class belong those "emendations" 


" The elliptic use of "y^'', frequent both in Hebrew and 
Ai'abic, being evidently unknown to the eraeudator, he 
alters the -["pV ^JC^' ilXO p^jT (<^en. xvii. 17), "shall 
a child be born unto him that is a hundred years old ':" 
\nto-Ti^'\i^."s.ha.\llhesetV' Gen.xxiv.62, XI^D Nl- 
" he came from going " (A. V. " from the way ') to the 
well of Lahai-roi, the Sam. alters into ")3n703 X3> 
" in or through the desert" (LXX., 6ia r^s cpij/xou). In 
Gen. XXX. 34, "111213 M' )b in. " liehold, may it be 

ding to thy word," the \^ (Arab. A) is transformed 
J{p, "and if not — let it be like thy word." Gen. 
xli. 32, □I'pnn niiEJ'in ?yi. " And for that the dream 

was doubled," becomes 'n n''Jti-' T]?]}), "The dream 
rose a second time," which is both uu-Hebrew, and 
diametrically opposed to the sense and construction of 
the passage. Better is the emendation Gen. xlix. 10, 
IvJI rjO " from between his feet," into " from 

T : - ' •• • f 

amung his banners," V73T ^QJO- ^^- ^'^- ^^' ^" ^"^' 
live of the Sam. Codd. read Tiyi u7)]}p, "for ever and 
fojiiic?'," instead of "iy"|, the common form, "evermore." 

Ex. xxxiv. 7, nj53^ K'? np3"l, " that will by no means 

clear tlie sitiy' becomes Tlp^l 1/ Hpil, "and the inno- 
cent to him shall be innocent," against both the parallel 
passages and the obvious sense. The. somewhat difficult 

■1SD' if>?^> " and they did not cease" (A. V., Num. xi. 
25), reappears as a still more obscure conjectural •ISDX''' 
which we would venture to translate, " they were not 
gathered in," in the sense of " killed : '' instead of 
either the IJi'JSX' "congregated," of the Sam. Vers., or 
Castell's " continue runt," or Houbigant's and Dathe's 
" couvenerant." Num. xxi. 2S, the "IJ?, "Ai-" (Moab), is 
emendated into "li?, " as far as," a perfectly meaningless 


of passages and words of the Hebrew text which 
contain something objectionable in the eyes of the 
Samaritans, on account either of histoi'ical impio- 
bability or ajjpaient want of dignity in the terms 
ajiplied to the Creator. Thus in the Sam. Pent, 
no one in the antediluvian times, begets his first 
son after he ha-s lived 150 years : but one hundred 
years are, where necessary, subtracted before, and 
added after the birth of the first son. Thus Jared, 
according to the Hebrew Text, begot at 162 years, 
lived iffterwards 800 years, and "all his years were 
9(32 years;" according to the Sam. he begot when 
only 62 years old, lived afterwards 785 years, " and 
all his years Avere 847." After the Deluge the 
opposite method is followed. A hundred or fifty 
years are added before and subtracted after the be- 
getting: E.g. Arphaxad, who in the Common Text 
is 35 years old when he begets Shelah, and lived 
afterwards 403 years: in all 438 — is by the Sam. 
made 135 years old when he begets Shelah, and 
lives only 303 years afterwards = 438. (The LXX. 
has, according to its own peculiar ]isycholotjical and 
chi'onological notions, altered the Text in the oppo- 
site manner. [See Septdagint.] ) An exceedingly 
important and often discussed emendation of this 
class is the passage in Ex. xii. 40, which in oui 
text reiids, " Now the sojourning of the children of 
Israel who dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and 
thirty years." The Samaritan (supported by LXX. 
Cod. Al.) has " The sojourning of the children of 
Israel, [awe? their fathers who duelt in tlie land of 
Canaan and in the land of Egypt — iv yrj AlyvTrrw 
KoL iv yfj Kavadv] was four hundred and thirty 
yeare :" an interpolation of very late date indeed. 

reading ; only that the IJ?, " city," as we saw above, was 
a word unknown to the Sam. The somewhat uncommon 
words (Num. xi. 32), mL2t^' UTl? ']n'0^% "and they 
(the people) spread them all abroad," are transposed into 

ntiint;' nn^ ipnt^'''1. " a"'^ tl^^y slaughtered for 
themselves a slaughter." Deut. xxviii. 37, the word 

n?3D'7, "an astonishment" (A. V.), very rarely used in 
this sense (Jer. xix. 8, xxv. 9), becomes D^V, " to a 
name," i. e., a bad name. Deut. xxxiii. 6, Vri?P ^H'T 
■|2DD. "May his men be a multitude," the Sam., with 
its characteristic aversion to, or rather ignorance of, the 
use of poetical diction, reads "ISDO ''^^'5 ^'"'''^' "May 
there he from him a multitude,' thereby trying perhaps 
to encounter also the apparent difficulty of the word 
"IDDDi standing for " a great number." Anything more 
absurd than the iriXD '" l'^'* place could hardly be 
imagined. A few veroes further on, the uncommon use 
of IP in the phrase j-ID-lp^ JD (Deut. xxxiii. 11), as 
'' lest," "not," caused the no less unfortunate alteration 
•ISD^iP) '•p. so that the latter part of the passage, " smite 
through the loins of them that rise against him, and of 
them that hate him, that they rise not again," becomes 
" K'Ao will raise i/iw/i?"— barren alike of meaning and 
of poetry. For the unusual and poetical '^N3^ (Deut. 
xxxiii. 25; A. V. "thy strength"), "jiQI i* suggested; 
a word about the significance of which the commentators 
are at a greater loss even than about that of the original. 

^ Thus in Gen. i. 14, the words |nSn 7]} T'Xn?. 
" to give light upon the earth," are inserted frum ver. 17 ; 

Gen. xi, 8, the word ?"=I.10-l "and a tower," is added 

from ver. 4; Gen. xxiv! 22, nSN bV' "°" ^^^ ^^'^^" 
(, is added from ver. 47, so thai the fonner verse 
reads " And the man took (npM for Ql^f)) a golden ring 
' upon her face.' " 


Again, in (leu. ii. 2, "And God [? had] finished 
('?2''1, ? pluperf.) on the seventh day," '•yntJ'n is 
altered into '•JJ'K'n, " the sixth," lest God's rest 
on the Sabbath-day might seem incomplete (LXX.). 
In (Jen. x.\i.\. :>, 8, " We cannot, until all the flocks 
be gathered together, and till they roll the stone 
from the mouth of the well," D^"l1V. '' flocks," 
is replaced by D'^yil, " shepherds," since the flocks 
coxild not roll the stone from the well : the cor- 
rector not being apparently aware that in common 
parlance in Hebrew, as in other languages, '■' they " 
occasionally refers to certain not particularly spe- 
cified persons. Well may Gesenius ask what this 
conector would have made of Is. xxxvii. [not 
xxxvi.] 36 : " And when they arose in the morning, 
behold theij were all dead corpses." The surpassing 
reverence of the Samaritan is shown in passages like 
Ex. xxiv. 10, "and they beheld God,"^ which 
is transmuted into " and they held by, clung to, 
God " « — a reading certainly less in harmony with 
the following — " and they ate and drank." 

7. The seventh class comprises what we might 
briefly call Samaritanisms, i. e. certain Hebrew 
forms, translated into the idiomatic Samaritan ; 
and here the Sam. Codices vary considerably among 
themselves, — as far as the very imperfect collation of 
them has hitherto shown — some having retained 
the Hebrew in many places where the others have 
adopted the new equivalents.* 

8. The eighth and last class contains alterations 
made in favour or on behalf of Samaritan theology, 
hermeneutics, and domestic worship. Thus the 
word Elohiin, four times construed with the plural 
verb in the Hebrew Pentateuch, is in the Sam- 
aritan Pent, joined to the singular verb CGen. xx. 
1.3, xx.xi. 53, XXXV. 7; Ex. xxii. 9); and further, 
both anthropomorphisms as well as anthropopathisms 
are carefully expunged — a practice very common in 
later times.'' The last and perhaps most momentous 

1 The gutturals and .dAcra- letters are frequently 
changed :— t21"in becomes t^l"!^ (^en. viii. 4) ; ^^3 is 
altered into ly^ (xxiii. 18) ; n^K* into y^^ (x.xvii. 19) ; 
'•'^snt stands for ipnt Peut. xx.xii. 24) ; the n is changed 
into n in words like Jn3. DTIQJ. which become Jn3. 
D^n^J ; n is altered into y— IDH becomes "^QV- '^'^e 
^ is frequently doubled (? as a mater lectionis) : 3''t3'>\T 
is substituted for ^^DTl ; N"I"'''N i'"'' XT'Ji ; "'''Q f'^'' ''S- 
Many words are joined togoUur :— "l"m~|JO stands for 
"im "ID (Kx. XXX. 23); ]x:nD for JX pD (Gen.xli. 
45); D1fi-|J "in is always □'•t'l-lJ-in- The pronouns 
rlN and I^X, 2nd p fcm. sing, and plur., are changed into 
"'^^^ priN (ttie obsolete Heb. forms) respectively ; the 
suir. Tj into -|X ; \. into "]"' ; the termination of the 2nd 
p. s. fem. praet., 'Pr, becomes ^T\, like the first p.; the 
verbal form Aphel is used for the Hiphil; T|"l!DTN for 
^mDtn ; the medial letter of the verb "|"y is sometimes 
retained a.s J{ or ^, instead of being dropped as in the Heb. 
Again, verbs of the form pl'v have the > frequently at the 
end of the itjfin. fut. and part., instead of the H- Nouns of 

the schema 7Dp ( 7!1N, kc.) are often spelt P'tSp, into 

which the form /IJOp is likewise occasionally trans- 
formed. Of distinctly Samaritan words may be men- 
tioned : "in (Gen. xxxiv. 31 )=:"I''K. yT} (Chald.), " like ;" 

DTin. f"i- Heb. onin. -seai;- nniba. "as though 

it buddP.I," becomes nmDN3 = J'"'S- nntQN "ID; 


of all intentional alterations is the constant change 
of all the "in3^, " God will choose a spot," into 
"inn, " He has chosen," viz. Gerizim, and the well- 
known substitution of Gerizim for Ebal in Deut. 
xxvii. 4 (A. V. r>): — " It shall be when ye be gone 
over Jordan, that ye shall set up these stones which 
I command you this day on Mount Ebal (Sam. 
Gerizim), and there shalt thou build an altar 
unto the Lord thy God," &c. This passage gains a 
certain interest from Whiston and ICennicott having 
charged the Jews with corrupting it from Gerizim 
into Elxil. This supjaosition, however, was met by 
Rutherford, Parry, Tychseu, Lobstein, Verschuii', 
and others, and we need only add that it is com- 
pletely given up by modern Biblical scholars, al- 
though it cannot be denied that there is some prima 
facie ground for a doubt upon the subject. To this 
class also belong more especially interpolations of 
really existing passages, dragged out of their con- 
text for a special purpose. In Exodus as well as 
in Deuteronomy the Sam. has, imiriediately after 
the Ten Commandments, the following insertions 
froiTi Deut. xxvii. 2-7 and xi. 30 : " And it shall be 
on the day when ye shall pass over Jordan ... ye 
shall set up these stones ... on ]\Iount Geririm 
. . . and there shalt thou build an altar . . . ' That 
mountain ' on the other side Jordan by the way 
where the sun goeth down ... in the champaign 
over against Gilgal, beside the plains of Moreh, ' over 
ai/ainst Shechem : ' " — this last superfluous addi- 
tion, which is also found in Deut. xi. 30 of the 
Sam. Pent., being ridiculed in the Talmud, as we 
have seen above. 

From the immense number of these worse than 
worthless variants Gesenius has singled out four, 
which he thinks preferable on the whole to those 
of the Masoretic Text. We will confine ourselves 
to mentioning them, and refer the reader to the 
recent commentaries upon them : he will find that 

DDn. "wise," reads Di3n; "i^. "spoil," ny? m©';. 

" days," nJDi\ 

^ nJDn?JD ^''H' " 'nan ot war," an expression used 
of God (Ex. XV. 3), becomes "Q TlHII' "liero of war," 
the former apparently of irreverent import to the .Sama- 
ritan ear; for ',-[ Sl{< )^'])> (Deut. xxix. 19, A. V. 20). P 
lit. "And the wrath (nose) of the Lord shall smoke," 
'n 51 N inV " 'b^ wratli of the Lord will be kindled," is 
substituted; '•p~i)r\'0 "IIV (Deut. xxxii. 18), "the rock 
(God) which begat thee," is changed into "l^^nJD TlV- 
" the rock which glorifies thee ;" Gen. xix, 12, D^^'JXn. 
" the men," used of the angels, has been replaced by 
Q'l^j^TJQpl. " the angels." Extreme reverence for the 
patriarchs changed Tnj^, •' Cursed be their (Simeon and 
Levi's) anger," into "I'l'lX' " brilliant is their anger " 
(Gen. xli.x. 7). A flagrant falsification is the alteration, 
in an opposite sense, which they ventured in the passage 
nOab ptJ''' 'n 'T''^^ " The beloved of God [Ben- 
jamin, the founder of the Judaeo-Davidian empire, hate- 
ful to the Samaritans] shall dwell securely," trans- 
formed by them into the almost senseless 'H "I^ T* 
nO!2^ pt?*''' " ^** hand, the /lanct of God will rest [if 
Hiph. : J3t^\ ' will cause to rest '] securely " (Deut. xxxiii. 
12). Reverence for the Law and the Sacred Records gives 
rise to more emendations: — V^'20!3 (f^eut. xxv. 12, 
A. v. 11), "by his secrets," becomes Tlt^'^ll, " by liis 
fiesh;" njPJE^''*, " coibit cum ea" (Deut. xxviii. 12), 
nOy 2'D^'', " concumbet cum ea;" jp'i'pCi'n 37D'?. 
" to the dog shall ye throw it" (Ex. xxii. 30), "[^K^n 
vCn. " .vc sli.all indeed throw it [away]." 


they too liave since been, all but unanimously, 
rejected.': (1.) Al'tei the words, " And Cain spobu 
(■lOS''1) to his brother Abel" (Gen. iv. 8.), the 
Sam. adds, " let us go into the field," ^ in ignorance 
of the absol. use of "lOX, " to -say, speak" (comp. 
Kx. xi.\. 25; 2 Chr. ii. 10, xx.xii. .34), and the 
absol. ly) (Gen. i.x. 21). (2.) For "inX (Gen. xxii. 
VS) the Sam. reads IHH, i. e. instead of" bi^hiiid 
him a ram," " 07ie ram." (3.) For D"l3 11011 
(Gen. xlix. 14), "an ass of bone" i.e. a strong 
ass, the Sam. has Dn3 "lIDn (Targ. DlJ, Syr. 


V. 14), "he 
Sam. reads 

). And (4.) for p1''1 (Gen. x 

forth his trained servants," the 

pT*1, " he numbered." 

We must briefly state, in concluding this por- 
tion of the subject, that we did not choose this 
classification of Gescnius because it appeared to us 
to be either systematic (Gesenius says himself: 
" Ceterum facile peispicitur complures in his esse 
loctiones quarum singulas alius ad aliud genus re- 
ferre forsitan malit ... in una vel altera lectione ad 
aliam classem referenda hand difficiles erimus . . • ) 
or exhaustive, or even because the illustrations 
themselves are unassailable in point of the reason 
he assigns for them ; but because, deficient as it is, 
it has at once and for ever silenced the utterly un- 
foundeil though time-hallowed claims of the Sama- 
ritan Pentateuch. It was only necessary, as we said 
before, to collect a great number of variations (or 
to take them from Walton), to compare them with 
the olil text and with each other, to place them in 
some kind of order before the reader and let them 
tell their own tale. That this was not done during 
the two hundred years of the contest by a single 
one of the combatants is certainly rather strange : 
— albeit not the only instance of the kind. 

Important additions to this list have, as we 
hinted before, been made by Frankel, such as the 
Samaritans' preference of the imperat. for the 3rd 
pers. ;« ignorance of the use of the abl. absol. ;' 
(jalileanisms, — to which also belongs the permuta- 
tion of the letters Ahevis (comp. Erub. 53, "IDPI, 
"1J3X, "llDy), in the Samaritan Cod. ; the occasional 
softening down of the S into h,^ of 3 into 3, ^f 
into T, &c., and chiefly the presence of words and 
phrases in the Sam. which are not interpolated from 
parallel passages, but are entirely wanting in our 
text.' Frankel derives from these passages chiefly 
the conclusion that the Sam. Pent, was, partly at 
least, emendated from the LXX., Onkelos, and other 
very late sources. ( See below.) 

We now subjoin, for the sake of completeness, the 
beforementioned thirteen classes of Kirchheim, in the 
original. To which we have added the translation : — 

1. Dnnj in rhvToh D''''i3t:"i msDin. [Ad- 
ditions and alterations in the Samaritan Pentateuch 
m favour of ]\Iount Gerizim.] 


2. mx'po'? mSDin. [Additions for tlic i.ur- 
pose of con-,[)letii.M.J 

3. "l"lX!2. [('ommentary, Lilosses.] 

4. □'':^:3m C'^yan Cll'pn. [change of verbs 
and moods. ] 

5. niOKTI '!]'hn. [Change of nouns.] 

(.!. HNIt^'n. [Kmendation of seeming irregu- 
larities by assimilating forms, &c.] 

7. nVnii^ri milOn. [Permutation of letters.] 

8. n'''''l3D. [Pronouns.] 

9. pO. [Gender.] 

10. DliiDl^n mTllX. [Letters ad.led.] 

11. DnTi nVrilN. [Addition of prepositions, 
conjunctions, articles, kc.J 

12. insi l^inp. [Junction of separated, and 
separation of joineil words.] 

13. d'pIJ? ni?0''. [Chronologic.-vl alterations.] 
It may, perhaps, not be quite superfluous to ob- 
serve, before we proceed any further, that, since up 
to this moment no critical edition of the Sam. Pent., 
or even au examination of the Codices since Ken- 
nicott — who can only be said to have begun the 
\voi-]j — has been thought of, the treatment of the 
whole subject remains a most precarious task, and 
beset with unexampled difficulties at every step; 
and also that, under these circumstances, a more or 
less scientific arrangement of isolated or common 
Samaritan mistakes and falsifications appears to us 
to be a subject of very small consequeirce indeed. 

It is, however, this same rudimentary state of 
investigation — after two centuries and a half of 
fierce discussion — which has left the other and 
much more important question of the Aye and 
Origin of the Sam. Pent, as unsettled to-day as it 
was when it first came under the notice of European 
scholars. For our own part we cannot but think 
that as long as— (1) the history of the Samaritans 
remains involved in the obscurities of which a 
former article will have given an .account; (2) we 
are restricted to a small number of compai-atively 
)-ecent Codices ; (3) neither these Codices them- 
selves have, as has just been observed, been tho- 
roughly collated and recollated, nor (4) more than 
a feeble beginning has been made with anything 
like a collation between the various readings of 
the Sam. Pent, and the LXX. (Walton omitted 
the greatest number, " cum nullam sensus varie- 
tatem constifuant ") ; — so long must we have a 
variety of the most divergent opinions, all based on 
"probabilities," which are designated on the other side 
as " false reasonings" and " individual crotchets," 
and which, moreover, not unfrequently start from 
flagrantly false premisses. 

We shall, under these circumstances, confine our- 
selves to a simple enumeration of the leading opi- 
nions, and the chief reasons and arguments alleged 
for and against them : — 

<: Keil, ki the latest edition of his Introd. p. 590, note 7, 
says, " Even the few variants, which Gesenius tries to 
prove genuine, fall to the ground on closer examina- 
tion." . 

* £. 0- mpn for mp'' (^x. xn. 48) ; nt;'yi f?a'' 

(Ex. XXXV. 10). 

' E.O- nDT for "113* (Ex.xiii. 1.3); ^Qy^ lor Qin 
(Num. XV. 35). 

g E.g. P|-,nl for fl-im (Gen. viii.22); ^in for py 
'..Gen. xxxvi. 2a^ ; f|NCn for ir|nt;'n 'T-'<'V ^^i. HJI, &c. 

'^ K'llT'l for £i>DnM CGen. xxxi. 35); nStJ'J for 

naK': (ex. xv. ho. : 

i Gen. xxiii. 2, after yaiS^H Dnpa the words ^^ 
pj^y .ire added; xxvii. 27, after nlt^'n ^"^^ "'"'''^ ^'^ 
is found (LXX.); xliii. 28, the pbr.-ise t^'1i<^ "1112 
Qipi'pfs';) 5<inn is inserted after theEtbnach ; xlvii. 21, 

Q''"i2yS "loyn, an^ ^x. xxxn. 32, ^^j^n s^t^'n dn 

■^^ on is r«id. An exceedingly difScult ,ind un-IIebrew 
passage is found in I'lx. xxiii. 19, reading HCJ? "iS 


(1.) The Samaritan Pentateuch came into the 
hands of the Samaritans as an inheritance from the 
ten tribes whom they succeeded — so tlie popular 
notion runs. Of this opinion are J. Morinus, Waltoii, 
Cappellus, Kennicott, Michaelis, Eichhorn, Bauer, 
Jahn, Bertholdt, Steudel, Mazade, Stuart, Davidson, 
and others. Their reasons for it may be thus briefly 
summed up : — 

(a.) It seems improbable that the Samaritans 
should have accepted their code at the hands of the 
Jews after the E.\ile, as supposed by some critics, 
since there existed an intense hatred between the 
two nationalities. 

(6.) The Samaritan Canon has only the Penta- 
teuch in common with the Hebiew Canon : had 
that book been received at a period when the Hagio- 
grapha and the Prophets were in the Jews' hands, 
it would be surprising if they had not also received 

(c.) The Sam. letters, avowedly the more ancient, 
are found in the Sam. Cod.: therefore it was written 
before the altei ation of the character into the square 
Hebrew- — which dates from the end of the Exile — 
took place. 

[We cannot omit briefly to draw attention here to 
.a most keen-eyed suggestion of S. D. Luzzatto, 
contained in a letter to R. Kirchheim [Ccmna 
Shomron, p. 106, &c.), by the adoption of which 
many readings in the Heb. Codex, now almost un- 
intelligible, appear perfectly clear. He assumes that 
the copyist who at some time or other after Ezra 
transcribed the Bible into the modern square He- 
brew charactei-, from the ancient copies written in 
so-called Samaritan, occasionally mistook Samaritan 
letters of similar form.'' And since our Sam. Pent, 
has those difficult readings in common with the 
l\Ias. Text, that otliev moot point, whether it was 
copied from a Hebrew or Samaritan Codex, would 
thus appear to be solved. Its constant changes 
of T and 1, ^ and 1, H and PI — letters which 
are similar in Hebrew, but not in Samai'itan — 
have been long used as a powerful ai'gument for 
the Samaritans having received the Pent, at a very 
late period indeed.] 

Since the above opinion — that the Pent, came 
into the hands of the Samaritans from the Ten 
Tribes^is the most popular one, we will now 
adduce some of the chief reasons brought against it, 
and the reader will see by the somewhat feeble 
nature of the arguments on either side, that the last 
word has nob yet been spoken in the matter. 

(a.) There existed no religious animosity what- 
soever between Judah and Israel when they sepa- 
i-ated. The ten tribes could not therefore have 
bequeathed such an animosity to those who suc- 
ceeded them, and who, we may add, probably cared 
as little originally for the disputes between Judah 
and Israel, as colonists from far-off countries, be- 
longing to utterly different races, are likely to care 
for the quarrels of the aborigines who formerly in- 
habited the country. On the contrary, the contest 
between the .slowly judaized Samaritans and the 
Jews, onlv dates from the moment when the latter 

k E. g.. Is. xi. 15, C'lyn instead of D^VQ (adopted by 
Oesenius in Thes. p. 1017 o, wiibout a mention of its 
L.ource, which he, however, distinctly avowed to Rosen- 
mliller— conip. £^"3, p. lOY, note J^); Jer iii. 8, XINI 
instead of {{"ini ! ^ *^"'- '^•'''^'- ''- DHni f'^"" DPINI; 

Ezr. vi. 4, rnn for NTH; i'>.. x>:ii. 20, innjiTi foi- 

innCiTl ; Ji'dp;. XV. ■M, □'r-|t»»y— Sumson's reign during 
the time of tlie Philistines being given as twenty years 


refused to recognise the claims of the former, of 
belonging to the people of God, and rejected their 
aid in building the Temple: why then, it is said, 
should they not first have received the one book 
which would bring them into still closer conformity 
with the returned exiles, at their hands? That the 
Jews should yet have refused to receive them as 
equals is no more surprising than that the Sama- 
ritans fi'om that time forward took their stand upon 
this very Law — altered according to their circum- 
stances ; and proved from it that they and they alone 
were the Jews /cot' e|oxr)i'. 

(6 ) Their not possessing any other book of the 
Hebrew Canon is not to be accounted for by the 
circumstance that there was no other book in exist- 
ence at the time of the schjsm, because many psalms 
of David, writings of Solomon, cSic, must have been 
circulating among the people. But the jealousy 
with which the Samaritans regarded Jerusalem, and 
the intense hatred which they naturally conceived 
against the post-Mosaic writers of national Jewish 
history, would sufficiently account for their reject- 
ing the other books, in all of which, save Joshua, 
Judges, and Job, either Jerusalem, as the centre of 
worship, or David and his House, are extolled. If, 
however, Loewe has really found with them, as he 
reports in the Allgem. Zeitung d. Judenth. April 
18th, 1839, our Book of Kings and Solomon's Song 
of Songs, — which they certainly would not have re- 
ceived subsequently, — all these arguments are per- 
fectly gratuitous. 

(c.) The present Hebrew character was not inti-o- 
duced by Ezra after the return from the Exile, but 
came into use at a much later period. The Samari- 
tans might thei-efore have received the Pentateuch 
at the hands of the returned exiles, who, according 
to the Talmud, afterwards changed their writing, 
and in the Pentateuch only, so as «to distinguish 
it from the Samaritan. " Originally," says Mar 
Sutra (Sanhedr. xxi. b), "the Pentateuch was 
given to Israel in Ihri writing and the Holy 
(Hebrew) language: it was again given to them 
in the days of Ezra in the Ashnrith writing and 
Aramaic language. Israel then selected the Ashurith 
writing and the Holy language, and left to the He- 
diotes ('iSitoToi) the Ibri writing and the Aramaic 
language. Who are the Hediotes ? The Cuthim 
(Samaritans"). What is Ibri writing ? The Libo- 
naah (Samaritan")." It is well known also that 
the Maccabean coins bear Samaritaii inscriptions : so 
that " Hediotes" would point to the common use 
of the Samaritan character for ordinary purposes, 
down to a very late period. 

(2.) The second leading opinion on the age and 
origin of the Sam. Pent, is that it was introduced by 
Manasseh (comp. Josephus, Ant. xi. 8, §2, 4-) at tlie 
time of the foundation of the Samaritan Sanctuary 
on Mount Gerizim (Ant. van Dale, R. Simon, Pri- 
deaux, Fulda, Hasse, De Wette, Gesenius, Hupfeld, 
Hengstenberg, Keil, &c.). In support of this opinion 
are alleged, the idolatry of the Samaritans before 
they received a Jewish priest through Esarhaddon 

instead oi forty (comp. Ja: Sot. 1), accounted for by the J2 
(numerical letter for forty) in the original being mistaken 
for 3 (twenty). Again, 2 Chr. xxii. 2, forty is put in- 
stead of tu-enty (comp. 2 Iv. viii. 26); 2 K. xxii. 4, Qn^l 
for -If!'''! ; Ez. iii. 12, ^'\'^2 fo>" DnS- ^^- :— "" ""^^"^ 
letters— JTi; and <{n. A- and J\; 2 a"d % "s and ^— 
rospmbling each other very closely. 


2 K. xvii. 24-33), and the immense number of 
readings common to the LXX. and this Code, 
against the Masoietic Text. 

(3.) Other, but very isohvted notions, are those of 
Morin, Le Clerc, Poncet, &c., that the Israelitish 
priest sent by the king of Assyria to instruct the 
new inhabitants in the rehgion of the country 
brought the Pentateuch with him. Further, that 
the Samaritan Pentateuch was the production of 
an impostor, Dositheus (^NtODIT in Talmud), who 
lived during the time of ihe Apostles, and who 
falsified the sacred lecords in order to prove that he 
was the Messiah (Ussher). Against which there 
is only this to be observed, that there is not tiie 
slightest alteration of such a nature to be found. 
Finally, that it is a very late and faulty recension, 
made after the Masoretic Text (sixth Century after 
Christ), into which glosses from the LXX. had been 
received (Frankel). Many other suggestions have 
been made, but we cannot here dwell upon them : 
suffice it to have mentioned those to which a certain 
popularity and authority attaches. 

Another question has been raised: — Have all the 
variants which we find in our copies been introduced 
at once, or are they the work of many generations ? 
From the number of vague opinions on that point, 
we have only room here to adduce that of Azariah 
de Rossi, who traces many of the glosses (Class 2) 
both in the Sam. and in the LXX. to an ancient 
Targum in the hands of the people at the time of 
I'lzra, and refers to the Talmudical p;\ssage oi Nedar. 
37 ; " And he read in the Book of the Law of 
God — this is Mikra, the Pentateuch ; ^"lIQD, ex- 
planatory, this is Targum." [Versio>\s (Targum)."] 
Considering that no Masorah fixed the lettej-s and 
signs of the Samar. Codex, and that, as we have 
noticed, the principal object was to make it read 
as smoothly as possible, it is not easily seen why 
each succeeding century should not have added its 
own emendations. But, here too, investigation still 
wanders about in the mazes of speculation. 

The chief opinions with respect to the agreement 
of the numerous and as yet uninvestigated — even 
uncounted — readings of the LXX. (of which likewise 
no critical edition exists as yetj, and the Sam. Pent, 
are : — 

1. That the LXX. have translated from the Sam. 
(De Dieu, Selden, Hottinger, Hassencamp, Eichhorn, 
&c. ) . 

2. That mutual interpolations have taken place 
(Grotius, Ussher, Ravius, &c.). 

3. That both Versions were formed from Hebrew 
Codices, which differed among themselves as well 
as from the one which afterwai'ds obtained public 
authority in Palestine ; that however very many 
wilful corruptions and interpolations have crept in 
in later times (Gesenius). 

4. That the Samar. has, in the main, been altered 
from the LXX. (Frankel). 

It must, on the other hand, be stated also,* that 
the Sam. and LXX. quite as often disagree with 
each other, and follow each the Masor. Text. 
Also, that the quotations in the N. T. from the 
LXX., where they coincide with the Sam. against 
the Hebr. Text, are so small iu number and of so 

"" The original intention of the Russian Government to 
publish the whole Codex iu the same manner seems to 
have been given up lor the present. We can only hope 
that, if the work is ever taken up again, it will fall into 
mo.'-e competent ban\j5. Mr. Levi'sohu's Introduction, 


unnnportant a nature that they cannot be adduced 
as any argument whatsoever. 

The following is a list of the JISS. of the Sam. 
Pent, now in European Libraries [Kennicott] : — 

No. 1. Oxford (Ussher) Bodl., fol.. No. 3127. 
Perfect, except tlie 20 fiist and 9 last verses. 

No. 2. Oxford (Ussher) Bodl., 4to., JS'o. 3128, 
with an Aiabic version m Sam. characters. Imper- 
fect. Wanting the whole of Leviticus and many 
portions of the other books. 

No. 3. Oxford (Ussher) Bodl., 4to., No. 3129. 
Wanting many portions in each book. 

No. 4. Oxford (Ussher, Laud) Bodl., 4to., No. 
624. Defective in parts of Deut. 

No. 5. Oxford (Marsh) Bodl., 12mo., No. 15. 
Wanting some verses in the beginning ; 2 1 chapters 

No. 6. Oxford (Pocock) Bodl., 24mo., No. 5328. 
Parts of leaves lost ; otherwise perfect. 

No. 7. London (Ussher) Br. Mus. Claud. B. 8. 
Vellum. Complete. 254 leaves. 

No. 8. Paris (Peiiesc) Imp. Libr., Sam. No. 1. 
Recent MS. containing the Hebr. and Sam. Texts, 
with an Arab. Vers, in the Sam. character. 
Wanting the first 34 ch., and very defective in 
many places. 

No. 9. Paris (Peiresc) Imp. Libr., Sam. No. 2. 
Ancient MS., wanting first 17 chapters of Gen.; 
and all Deut. from the 7th ch. Houbigant, how- 
ever, quotes from Gen. x. 11 of this Codex, a 
rather puzzling circumstance. 

No. 10. Paris (Harl. de Sancy) Oratory, No. 1. 
The famous MS. of P. della Valle. 

No. 11. Paris (Dom. Nolin) Oratory, No. 2. 
Made-up copy. 

No. 12. Paris (Libr. St. Genfev.). Of little 

No. 13. Rome (Peir. and Barber.) Vatican, 
No. 106. Hebi-. and Sam. texts, with Arab. 
Vers, in Sam. character. Very defective and re- 
cent. Dated the 7th century (?). 

No. 14. Rome (Card. Cobellutius), Vatican. 
Also supposed to be of the 7th century, but veiy 

No. 15. Milan (Ambrosian Libr.). Said to be 
very ancient ; not collated. 

No. 16. Leyden (Golius MS.), fol., No. 1. Said 
to be complete. 

No. 17. Gotha (Ducal Libr.). A fragment only. 

No. 18. -London, Count of Paris' Library. With 

Printed editions are contained in the Paris and 
Walton Polyglots; and a sepaiate reprint from 
the latter was made by Blayney, Oxford, 1790. A 
Facsimile of the 20th ch. of Exodus, from one of 
the Nahlus MSS., has been edited, with portions of 
the corresponding Masoretic text, and a Russian 
Translation and Introduction, by Levysohn, Jeru- 
salem, I860."' 

II. Versions. 

1. Samaritan. — The origin, author, and age of the 
Samaritan Version of the Five Books of Moses, has 
hitheito — so Eichhorn quaintly observes — "always 
been a golden apple to the investigators, and will very 
probably remain so, until people leave off venturing 
decisive judgments upon histoi'iail subjects which 

brief as it is, shows him to be utterly \\ anting both in 
scholarship and in critical acumen, and to be, moreover, 
entirely unacquainted with the fact .that his new dis- 
coveries have been disposed of some hundred and fifty 
years since. 


no one has recorded in antiquity." And, indeed, 
modern investigatoi-s, keen as they have been, have 
done little towards the elucidation of the subject. 
According to the Samaiitaiis themselves (Do Sacy 
3Iein. 3 ; Paulus; Winer), their high-priovst 
Nathaniel, who died about 20 B.C., is its author. 
Gesenius puts its date a few years after Clirist. 
JuynboU thinks that it had long been iu use in 
the second post-Christian century. Frankel places 
it in the post-JIohammedan time. Other inves- 
tigators, date it from the time of Esarhaddon's 
priest (Sehwarz), or either shortly before or after 
the foundation of the temple on Mount Gerizim. 
It seems certain, howevej-, that it was composed 
before tlie destruction of the second temple ; and 
being intended, like the Targums, for the use of the 
people exclusively, it was written in the popular 
Samaritan idiom, a mixture of Hebrew, Aramaic, 
and Syriac. 

la this version the original has been followed, 
with a very few exceptions, in a slavish and some- 
times perfectly childish manner, the sense evidently 
being of minor consideration. As a very striking 
instance of this may be adduced the translation of 
Deut. iii. 9 : " The Zidoniaus call Hermon J*1K> 
(Shirion), and the Amorites call it T'Jti' (Shenir;." 
The translator deriving JHti' from "Mi^ " prince, 
master," rendei's it J21 " masters ; " and finding 
the letters reversed in the appellation of the Amor- 
rites as "1"'3E^*, reverses also the sense in his version, 
and translates it by " slaves " innyC^O ! In 
other cases, where no Samaritan equivalent could be 
found for a Hebrew word, the translator, instead of 
paraphrasing it, simply transposes its letters, so as 

Onkelos in Polyglott. Num. vi 

'pNnc* ''J3 ny ^So : nD'-o'p ^:^'^D oy nin> b'pDi 

hn -\v pTiyi mn -idhd : T\\r\> onp -iro'? t^ini 

nnriD "p^i Tit:''' vh pTiy "lom "pni mn "lom 

■bo''' x"? pK'-'nM i^^'Di pnjyi Tit:'^ vh viiv 

liut no safe conclusion as to the respective rela- 
tion of the two versions can be drawn from this. 

This Version has likewise, in passing through the 
hands of copyists and commentators, sutfeied many 
interpolations and corruptions. The first copy of 
it was brought to Europe by De la Valle, together 
with the Sam. Text, in 1616. Joh. Nedrinus first 
published it together with a faulty Latin transla- 


to make it look Samaritan. Occasionally he is 
misled by the orthography of the original : 
; N'lDX p DX, "If so, where . . .?" he renders 
ntJIX p DX, "If so, I shall be wrath:" mistak- 
ing X1DX for 12X, from fjX " auger." On the 
whole it may be considered a very valuable aid 
towaids the study of the Samar. Text, on account 
of its ^'ery close verbal adherence. A few cases, 
however, may be brought forward, where the Ver- 
sion has departed from the Text, either under the 
influence of popular leligious notions, or for the 
sake of explanation. " We pray " — so they wiite 
to Scaliger — " every day in tlie morning and iu the 
evening, as it is said, the one lamb shalt thou prp- 
pare iu the morning and the second in the evening ; 
we bow to the ground and worship God." Accord- 
ingly, we find the translator rendering the passage, 
"And Isaac went to 'walk' (TW^'^) in the field," 
by^"and Isaac went to pray (nX?^D?) in the 
field." " And Abraham rose in the morning 
(^p1IH)," is rendered v^*2, " in the prayer," 
&c. Anthropomorphisms are avoided. " The 
image (DJIDrij of God" is rendered flCyj, '' the 
glory." mn^ ''3, " the mouth of .Jehovah," is 
transformed into nin* "lOVO, " the word of 
Jehovah." For U'^rh^, "God," HOx'pD, 
"Angel" is frequently found, &c. A great diffi- 
culty is offered by the proper names which this 
version ol'ten substitutes, they being, in many 
c;ises, less intelligible than the original ones." The 
similarity it has with Onkelos occasionally amounts 
to con:,plete identity, for instance — 

Sam. Vers, in Barherini TrigloU. 

" A list of the more remarkable of these, in the case of 
geographical names, is subjoined : — 

Gen. \i\\. 4, for Ararat, Sarendib, n^'TJID- 

X. 10, „ Shinar, Tsofah, HQIV Q 2obah). 

11, „ Asshur, Astun, TltOOy. 

— „ Rehoboth, .Satcan, pt^D (?Sittacene). 

— „ Calah, Laksah, T\Q\h- 

12, „ Resen, Asfah, n2Dy- 
30, „ Mcsha, Mesbal, 73DD- 

si. 9, „ Babel, Liiak, p'p^^. 
xiii. 3, „ Ai, Cefrali, n"lD3 (•' Cephirah, .losh. 

ix. 17). 
xiv. 5, „ Ashteroth Kamaim, Afiiiith Karniah, 

— „ Ham, Lishali, nL*'V- 

— «, „ Id !'ar..n, Pelisliali, fa-., Ht^'S^ DTID 

hiir\2^> '•n ny hht:> : id^d'? nii'in ny mn'' ^^?oi 

TM •r^):h t^^ns'' -is nnx ix "in: \\rh n?3''m 

''Dn '^'V cmi -ion p : r\'\r\h n-iTi-i?D'p inj 

l^n^y rrw mo b^i xnc"' x*? omn ''oni -lom 
.'pnM x*? pc^'un pn'-Di pnjyi nnc'^ xb 

tion in the Paris Polyglott, whence it was, with a 
few emendations, reprinted in Walton, with some 
notes by Castellus. Single portions of it appeared 
in Halle, ed. by Cellarius, 1705, and by Uhlemann, 
Leipz., 1837. Compare Gesenius, De Pent. Sam. 
Origine, &c., and Winer's monograph, De Versionis 
Pent. Sam. Indole, &c., Leipzig, 1817. 

2. Ti ^ajxapeiTiKSv. The hatred between the 

Gen. xiv. 14, for Dan, Banias, DX''33' 

— 15, „ Hobah, Fogah, nJID- 

— 17, „ Shaveh, aiifneh, HjSO- 

XV. 8, „ Euphrates, Shalmali, HXO'PC'- 

— 20, „ llephaim, Chasah, HXDn- 
XX. 1, „ Gfr^ir, Askclun, JlPpOy- 

xxvi. 2, „ Mitsraim, Netik, plQJ (.' Exodus). 

xxxvi.8,9,&c. „ Seir, Gablab, nS^J (J^bal). 

37, „ Rehobotb, Fathi, 1^2. 

Num. xxi. 33, „ Bashan, Bathnin, pjni (Batanaoa). 

xxxiv. IU, „ Shepham, 'Abamiab, rT'O^y (-^pa- 

U, „ Shepham, 'Afamiah, nVOSy- 

Dcut, ii. !), „ Ar (ly), Arshah, nC'IX- 

iii, 4, „ Argob.Rigobaah, nX31il''-| (P«7«^a). 

— 17, ,, Chinnereth, Gene.sar, ~ID33- 

iv. 48, „ Sion, Tur Tclga, XJ'PH lltO ('''Ix"' 
et Te!j). 


Samaritans and the Jews is supposed to have caused 
the former to prepare a Greek translation of their 
Pent, in opposition to the LXX. of the Jews. In 
this way at least the existence of certain fragments 
of a Oreeic Version of the Sam. Pent., preserved in 
some MSS. of the LXX., together with portions of 
Aquila, Symmacluis, Theodotion, &c., is accounted 
for. These fragments are supposed to be alluded to 
by the Greek Fathers under the name 'SauapeiTLKuf. 
It is doubtful however whether it ever existed (as 
Gesenius, Winer, Juynboll, suppose; in the shape of 
a complete translation, or only designated (as Cas- 
tellus, Voss, Herbst hold) a certain number of scholia 
translated from the Sam. Version. Other critics 
again (Kavernick, Hengstenberg, &c.) see in it only 
a corrected edition of certain piissages of the LXX. 

3. In 1070 an Arabic Version «f the Sam. Pent, 
was made by Abu Said in Egypt, on the basis of 
tlie Arabic translation of Saadjah haggaon. Like the 
original Samaritan it avoids Anthropomorphisms and 
Anthropopathisms, replacing the latter by Euphe- 
misms, besides occasionally making some slight alter- 
ations, more especially in proper nouns. It is extant 
in several MS. copies in European libraries, and is 
now in course of being edited by Kuenen, Leyden, 
1850-5-1-, &c. It appears to have been drawn up 
from the Sam. Text, not from the Sam. Version ; 
the Hebrew words occasionally lemaining unal- 
tered in the translation." Often also it renders 
the original difi'erently from the Samar. Version.? 
Principally noticeable is its excessive dread of as- 
signing to God anything like human attributes, 

physical or mental. For QTl'pK iDW, "God," 

we find (as in Saadiah sometimes) ^jj| .*)iV*o 
" the Angel of God ;" for " the eyes of God " we 
have (Deut. ix. 12) ^| ,jda>5)^^^ "the Be- 
holding of God." For " Bread of God :" . M, " the 

necessary," &c. Again, it occasionally adds ho- 
nourable epithets where the Scripture seems to have 
omitted them, &c. Its language is far from elegant 
or even correct ; and its use must likewise be con- 
fined to the critical study of the Sam. Text. 

4. To this Arabic version Abu Barachat, a Syrian, 
wrote in 1208 a somewhat paraphrastic commentary, 
which has by degrees come to be looked upon as a 
new Version — the Syriac, in contradistinction to 
the Arabic, and which is often confounded with it in 
the MSS. On both Recensions see Eichhorn, Gese- 
nius, Juynboll, &c. 

III. Samaritan Literature. 

It may perhaps not be superfluous to add here a 
concise account of the Samaritan literature in general, 
since to a certain degree it bears upon our subject. 

1 . Ckronicon Samaritanum. — Of the Pentateuch 
and its Versions we have spoken. We have also men- 
tioned that the Samaritans have no other book of our 
Pieceived Canon. " There is no I'rophet but ]\Ioses " 
is one of theii- chief dogmas, and tierce are the in- 
vectives in whicli they indulge against men like 

Samuel, "a Magician and an Infidel," Ju i {Chron. 

o E. g. E.\. xiii. 12, Dni "IDS h'2 (Sam. Ver. ^3 
Dm TlinS) remains^U ^ : xxi. 3, ^£^'N bVI 
(Sam. Ver. nnX inDD) '^ given ^\^\ Jjtj. 

p Thus n"T'y> ''™- ^'i-"^- 11 (Sa'"- ^'^i- Hmp. "liis 


8am.); Eli; Solomon, "Shiloh" (Gen. xlix. 10), 
" i. e. the man who shall spoil the Law and whom 
many nations will follow because of their own 
licentiousness" (De Sacy, ilfem. 4) ; Ezra "cursed 
for ever" {Lett, to Ilimtini/ton, kc). Joshua 
alone, partly on account of his being an Ephraimite, 
partly because Shechem was selected by him as the 
scene of his solemn valedictory address, seems to 
have found favour in their eyes ; but the Book 
of Joshua, which they perhaps possessed in its 
original form, gradually came to form only the 
groundwork of a fictitious national Samaritan his- 
tory, overgrown with the most fantastic and ana- 
chronistic legends. This is the so-called " Samaritan 

Joshua," or Chronicoii Samaritanum ( m^ ^ ^ %Xjm 
, . »j /.T-»)' ^S"*- to Scaliger by the Samaritans of 

Cairo in 1584. It was edited by Juynboll (Leyden, 
1848), and his acute investigations have shown 
that it was redacted into its present form about 
A.D. 1300, out of four special documents, three 
of which were Arabic, and one Hebrew (i. e. 
Samaritan). The Leyden MS. in 2 pts., which 
Gesenius, De Sam. Theol. p. 8. n. 18, thinks unique, 
is dated a.h. 764-919 (a.d. 1362-1.513) ;— the 
Cod, in the Brit. Museum, lately acquired, dates 
A.H. 908 (a.d. 1502). The chronicle embraces 
the time from Joshua to about a.d. 350, and was 
originally written in, or subsequently translated into, 
Arabic. After eight chapters of introductory matter 
begins the early history of " Isiael " under " King 
Joshua," who, among other deeds of arms, wages 
war, with 300,000 mounted men — " half Israel" 
— against two kings of Persia. The last of his five 
" royal " successors is Shimshon (Samson), the hand- 
somest and most powerful of them all. These reigned 
for the space of 250 years, and were followed by five 
high-priests, the last of whom was Usi (? = Uzzi, 
Ezr. vii. 4). With the history of Eh, " the seducer," 
which then follows, and Samuel " a sorcerer," the 
account by a sudden transition runs oil' to Nebuchad- 
nezzar (ch. 45), Alexander (ch. 46), and Hadrian 
(47), and closes suddenly at the time of Julian the 

We shall only adduce here a single specimen out 
of the 45th ch. of the Book, which treats of the 
subject of the Pentateuch : — 

Nebuchadnezzar was king of Persia (Mossul), and 
conquered the whole world, also the kings of Syria. 
In the thirteenth year of their subjugation they re- 
belled, together with the kings of Jerusalem (Kodsh). 
Whereupon the Samaritans, to escape fi-om the 
vengeance of their pursuer, fled, and Persian colo- 
nists took their place. A curse, however, rested 
upon the land, and the new immigrants died from 
eating of its fruits (Joseph. Ant. ix. 14, §3). The 
chiefs of Israel {%. e. Samaritans), being asked the 
reason of this by the king, explained it by the abo- 
lition of the worship of God. The king upon this 
permitted them to return and to erect a temple, in 
which work he promised to aid them, and he gave 
them a letter to all their dispersed brethren. Tlie 
whole Dispeision now assembled, and the Jews said, 
"We will now go up into the Holy City (Jeru- 

city"), the Arab, renders sokC > Cicn. xli. 43, "["I^K 
(Sam. Ver. W-^ = K^puf), the Arab, traiislates i_y^\ 

'1 A word, it may be observed by the way, taken Ijy the 
Mohiimmedans from the Kabbinical ("Ip^y^) ~12"|3- 


salem) and live theie in unity." But the sons of 
Harun (Aarou) and of Joseph (i. e. the priests and 
the Samaritans) insisted upon going to the " Mount 
of Blessing," Genzim. The dispute was refened to 
tlie king, and while the Samaritans proved their 
case from the books of Moses, the Jews grounded 
their preference for Jerusalem on the post-JIosaic 
books. The superior force of the Samaritan argu- 
ment was fully recognised by the king. But as each 
side — by the mouth of their spokesmen, Sanballat 
and Zeru babel respectively, — charged the other with 
basing its claims on a forged document, the sacred 
books of each party were subjected to the ordeal 
of tire. The Jewish Record was immediately con- 
sumed, while the Samaritan leaped three times from 
the flames into the king's lap : the third time, how- 
ever, a portion of the scroll, upon which the king 
had spat, was found to have been consumed. Thirty- 
six Jews were immediately beheaded, and the Sama- 
ritans, to the number of 300,000, wept, and all- 
Israel worshipped henceforth upon Mount Gerizim 
— " and so we will ask our help from the grace of 
God, who has in His mercy granted all these things, 
and in Him we will confide." 

2. From this work chiefly has been compiled an- 
other Chronicle written in the 14th century (1355), 
by AbuT Fatah.' This comprises the history of the 
Jews and Samaritans from Adam to A.H. 756 and 
798 (a.d. 1So5 and 1397) respectively (the forty- 
two years must have been added by a later historio- 
grapher). It is of equally low historical value ; its 
only remarkable feature being its adoption of certain 
Talmudical legends, which it took at second hand 
from Josippon ben Gorion. According to this 
chronicle, the deluge did not cover Gerizim, in the 
same manner as the Midrash {Ber. Bab.) exempts 
the whole of Palestine from it. A specimen, like- 
wise on the subject of the Pentateuch, may not be 
out of place : — 

In the year of the world 4150, and in the 10th 
year of Philadelphus, this king wished to leara the 
dillerence between the Law of the Samaritans, and 
that of the Jews. He therefore bade both send him 
some of their elders. The Samai'itans delegated 
Ahrou, Sumla, and Hudmaka, the Jews Eleazar only. 
The king assigned houses to them, and gave them 
each an adept of the Greek language, in order that 
he might assist them in their translation. The Sa- 
maritans rendered only their Pentateuch into the 
language of the land, while Eleazar produced a 
translation of the whole Canon. The king, per- 
ceiving variations in the respective Pentateuchs, 
asked the Samaritans the reason of it. Whereupon 
they replied that these difierences chietly turned 
upon two points. (1.) God Aati chosen the Mount 
of Gerizim : and if the Jews were right, • why was 
there no mention of it in their Thora? (2.) The Sa- 
maritans read, Deut. xxxii. 35, Dp3 D1 v, " to the 
day of vengeance and reward," the Jews DpJ ''?, 
" Mine is vengeance and reward " — which left it 
uncertiiin whether that reward was to be given 
hjre or in the world to come. The king then asked 
what was their opinion about the Jewisli prophets 
and their writings, and they leplied, " Either they 

^_^LJ! Qj*«^^ ^•i^i:^-i^ j^Oj^Ji ^\ 

^^y*.y^\ ^^^^^ i\V>d.\.\ Imp. Library, Paris). 

Two copies in Berlin Library (Pclermaun, Koseri) 
recently acquired. 


must have said and contained what stood in the 
Pentateuch, and then their saying it again was super- 
fluous; or more; or less:" either of which was again 
distinctly piohibited in the Thora; or finally they 
must have clianged the Laws, and these were un- 
changeable." A Greek who stood near, observed that 
Laws must be adapted to difieient times, and altered 
accordingly ; whereupon the Samaritans proved that 
this was only the case with human, not with Divine 
Laws : moreover, the seventy Elders had left them 
the explicit command not to accept a word beside 
the Thora. The king now fully approved of their 
translation, and gave them rich presents. But to 
the Jews he sti'ictly enjomed, not even to approach 
Mount Gerizim. There can be no doubt that tliere 
is a certain historical fact, however contorted, at 
the bottom of this (comp. the Talmudical and other 
accounts of the LXX.), but we cannot now further 
pursue the subject. A lengthened extract from this 
chronicle — the original text with a German trans- 
lation — is given by Schnuirer in Paulus' Keue 
Repertorium, 1790, 117-159. 

3. Another " historical " work is the ,_XjS 
ftlajM^S on the history and genealogy of the 
patriarchs, from Adam to Moses, attributed to Moses 
himself; perhaps the same which Petermann saw 
at Nablus, and which consisted of sixteen vellum 
leaves (supposed, however, to contain the history of 
the world down to the end). An anonymous recent 
commentarv on it, A.H. 1200, a.d. 1784, is in the 
Bnt. Mus.'(Xo. 1140, Add.). 

4. Of other Samaritan works, chiefly in Arabic — 
their Samaritan and Hebrew literature having mostly 
been destroyed by the Emperor Commodus — may be 
briefly mentioned Commentmies upon the whole or 
parts of their Pentateuch, by Zadaka b. JIanga b. 
Zadaka ;' further, by Maddib Eddin Jussuf b. Abi 
Said b. Khalef; by Ghazal Ibn Abu-1-Surur Al- 
Safawi Al-Ghazzi « (a.h. 1167-8, a.d. 1753-4, 
Brit. Mus.), &c. Theological works chiefly in 
Arabic, mixed with Samaritanisms, by Abul Has- 
san of Tyre, On the religious Manners and 
Customs of the Samaritans and the World to 
come ; by Mowaffek Eddin Zadaka el Israili, A Com- 
pendium of Eeligion, on the Nature of the Divine 
Being, on Man, on the Worship of God ; by A.min 
Eddin Abu'l Baracat, On the Ten Commandiitents ; 
bv Abu'l Ha-ssan Jbn El Markum Gonajem ben 
Abulfaraj' ibn Chatar, On Penance ; by Muhaddib 
Eddin Jussuf Ibn Salamah Ibn Jussuf Al Askari, An 
Exposition of the Mosaic Lairs, &c., &c. Some granr- 
matical works may be further mentioned, by Abu 
Ishak Ibrahim, On the Hebrew Language; by Alai 

Said, On reading the Hebrew Text { ^^Wi 
\jJi#J!). This grammar begins in the following 

characteristic manner: — 

" Thus said the Sheikh, rich in good works and 
knowledge, the model, the abstemious, the well- 
guided Abu Said, to whom God be merciful and 

" Praise be unto (iod for His help, and 1 ask for 
His guidance towards a clear exposition. 1 have 

• Compare the well known dictum of Omar on the 
Alexandrian Library (Gibbon, cb. 51). 

' ^p\yuJ\ ^^ (13th century, Bodi.). 

" Under tliL- title. \ ^1 r^ ^-.^lAiJ! cjLuLT 


resolved to hiy down a few rules for the proper 
manner of reading the Holy Writ, on account of the 
diffeience which I found, with respect to it, among 
oLir co-religionists — whom may (jod make numerous 
ami inspire to obedience unto Him ! — and in such a 
manner that I shall bring proofs for my assertions, 
from which the wise could in no way differ. But 
God knows best ! 

" fiule 1 : — With all their discrepancies about 
dogmas or religious views, yet all the confessors of 
the Hebrew religion agiee in this, that the D of 
the first pers. (sing, perf.) is always pronounced 
with Kasra, and that a * follows it, provided it has 
no suffix. It is the same, when the suffix of the 
plural □. is added to it, according to the unanimous 
testimony of the MSS., &c." 

The trciitise concludes, at the end of the 12th 
Canon or Kule : — 

" Often also the perfect is used in the form of 
the imperative. Thus it is reported of a man of 
the best reputation, that he had used the form of the 
impei'ative in the passage (Ex. lii. 13), v nDSI 
1Dt^' riD — ' And they shall say to me, What is his 
name ? ' He who reported this to me, is a man of 
very high standing, against whose truthfulness no- 
thing can be brought forward. But God knows best ! 

'• There are now a few more words to be treated, 
of which, however, we will tjeai, viva voce. And 
Iilessed be His name for evermore." 

5. Their Liturgical literature is more extensive, 
and not without a certain poetical value. It consists 
chiefly of hymns (Defter, Durran) and prayers for 
Sabbath and Feast-days, and of occasional prayers at 
nuptials, circumcisions, burials, and the lil^e. We 
subjoin a few specimens from MSS. in the British 
JIuseum, transcribed into Hebrew characters. 

The following is part of a Litany for the dead : — 

Lord Jehovah, Elohim, for Thy mercy, and for Thine 
Own sake, and for Thy name, and for Thy glorj', and for 
ihe sake of our Lords Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and 
our Lords Moses and Aaron, and Eleazar, and Ithamar, 
and Pinehas, and Joshua, and Caleb, and the Holy Angels, 
and the seventy Elders, and the holy mountain of Gerizim, 
Beth El. If Thou acceptest [□i^J^n] tbis prayer [XIpD 
^reading], may there go forth from before Thy holy 
countenance a gift sent to protect the spirit of Thy 

servant, \U .\ "SjU [N. the son of N.], of the 

sons of [ ], daughter [ ] from the sous of [ ]. 

Lord Jehovah, in Thy mercy have compassion on 
him (.J" [or] have compassion on her), and rest his (her) 
soul in the garden of Eden; and forgive him (.j [or] her), 

and all the congregation of Israel who flock to Mount 
Gerizim Beth El. Amen. Through Moses the trusty. 
Amen, Amen, Amen. 

The next is part cf a hymn (see Kirchheim's 
Carme Skomron, emendations on Gesenius, Carm. 
Sam. iii.) : — 


ins X'PX n'?N n*^ There is no God but one, 

nO'l/p DTI'PX The everlasting God, 

^]h ny tDTPt Who liveth for ever; 

1 V^n 73 '?y n /X God above all powers, 

U7yh P '0131 Andwholhusremainethfor 


pD in nxn 


n'DD -|mn3 
"131 "inin'px tD^D'2 

In Thy great power shall 

we trust. 
For Thou art our Lord ; 

In Thy Godhead ; for J hou 

hast conducted 
The world from beginning 

Thy power was hidden. 
And Thy glory and mercy. 

Revealed are both the things 
that are revealed, and 
those that are unrevealed 

Before the reign of Thy 
Godhead, &c. &c. 

IV^. We shall only briefly touch here, in conclu- 
sion, upon the strangely contradictory rabbinical laws 
framed for the regulation of the intercourse between 
the two rival nationalities of Jews and Samaritans 
in religious and ritual matters ; discrepancies due 
partly to the ever-shifting phases of their mutual 
relations, partly to the modifications brought about 
in the Samaritan creed, and partly to the now less 
now gi'eater acquiescence of the Jews in the reli- 
gious state of the Samaritans. Thus we find the 
older Talmudical authorities disputing whether the 
Cuthim (Samaritans) are to be considered as " Real 
Converts" flDK ^T'J, or only converts through 
fear — "Lion Converts " TlVIN *T'3 — in allusion 
to the ncident related in 2 K. xvii. 25 (^Haka K. 
38 ; Kidush. 75, &c.). One Rabbi holds '•133 Tin, 
" A Samaritan is to be considered as a heathen ;" 
while R. Simon b. Gamaliel — the same whose 
opinion on the Sam. Pent, we had occasion to quote 
before — pronounces that they are " to be treated 
in every respect like Israelites " {Dem. Je^\ ix. 2 ; 
Kctnh. 11, &c.). It would appear that notwith- 
standing their rejection of all but the Penta- 
teuch, they had adopted many traditional religious 
practices from the Jews — principally such as 
were derived direct from the Books of Moses. 
It was acknowledged that they kept these 
ordinances with even greater rigour than those 
from whom they adopted them. The utmost con- 
fidence was therefore placed in them for their 
ritually slaughtering animals, even fowls (Chul. 
4a) ; their wells are pronounced to be conformed 
to all the conditions prescribed by the Mishnah 
{Toseph. Mikic. 6 ; comp. Mikw. 8, 1). See, how- 
ever Abodah Zarah (Jcr. v. 4) . Their unleavened 
bread for the Passover is commended {Git. 10; 
Chul. 4) ; their cheese {^Mass. Cuth. 2) ; and even 
their whole food is allowed to the Jews (.^6. Zar. 
Jer. V. 4). Compare John iv. 8, where the disciples 
are reported to have gone into the city of Samaria 
to buy food. Their testimony was valued in that 
most stringent matter of the letter of divorce 
{Mas. Cuth. ii.). They were admitted to the office of 
circumcising Jewish boys {Mas. Cath. i.) — against 
R. Jehudah, who asserts that they circumcise " in 
the name of Blount Gerizim " {Abodah Zarah, 43). 
The criminal law makes no difference whatever be- 
tween them and the .lews {Mas. Cuth. 2 ; Makk. 
8) ; and a Samaritan who strictly adheres to his 
own special creed is honoured with the title of a 
Cuthi-Chaber {GMin, 106 ; Middah, 336). By 
degrees, however, inhibitions began to be laid upon 
the use of their wine, vinegar, bread {Mas. Cuth. 2 ; 
Toseph. 77, 5), &c. This intermediate stage of 


uncei-taiu and inconsistent treatment, which must 
have lasted for nearly two centuiies, is best char- 
acterized by the small rabbinical treatise quoted 
above— 3Iassechcth Cutliim (2nd cent, a.d.) — fii-st 
edited by Kirchheim ('D'?t^''n'' mJDp 'DD )i1'^ 
Fraucf. 1851, — the beginning of which reads: — 
" The ways (treatment) of the Cuthim (Samaritans), 
sometimes like Goyim (heathens) sometimes like 
Israel." No less striking is its conclusion: 

" And why are the Cuthim not permitted to come 
into the midst of the Jews?- Because they have 
mixed with the priests of the heights" (idolaters). 
K. Ismael says : " They were at first pious converts 
(pT^ 'T'^ =real Israelites), and why is the inter- 
course with them prohibited ? Because of their 
illegally begotten children,' and because they do 
not fulfil the duties of D3' (marrying the deceased 
brothei''s wife) " ; a law which thev understand, as 
we saw above, to apply to the betrothed only. 

" At what period are they to be received (into 
the Community) ? " " When they abjure the Jlount 
Gerizim, recognise Jerusalem (viz., its superior 
claims), and beheve in the'Resurrection." * 

We hear of their exclusion by R. Jleir (Chul. 
6), in the third generation of the Tanaim, and 
later again under K. Abbuha, the Amora, at the 
time of Diocletian ; this time the exclusion was un- 
conditional and final {Jer. Ahodah Zarah, 5, &c.). 
Partaking of their bread y was considered a trans- 
gi-ession, to be punished like eating the flesh of 
swine {Zeh. 8, 6;. The intensity of their mutual 
hatred, at a later period, is best shown by dicta like 
that in Meg. 28, 6. "May it never happen to 
me that I behold a Cuthi." "Whoever receives a 
Samaritan hospitably in his house, deserves that his 
children go into exile" (Synh. 104, 1). In Matt. 
X. 5 Samaritans and Gentiles are already mentioned 
together; and in Luke rvii. 18 the Samaritan is 
called "a stranger" {aWoyevTjs). The reason for 
this exclusion is vai-iously given. They are said 
by some to have used and sold the wine of heathens 
for sacnficial purposes (Jer. ib.) ; by others they 
were charged with worshipping the dove sacred 
to Venus; an imputation over the correctness of 
which hangs, up to this moment, a certain mvste- 
rious doubt. It has, at all events, never been 
brought home to them, that they really worshipped 
this image, although it was certainly seen with 
them, even by recent travellers. 

Authorities. — 1 . Original texts. Pentateuch in 
the Polyglotts of Paris, and Walton ; also (in Hebr. 
letters) by Blayney, 8vo. Ox. 1790. Sam. Version 
in the Polyglotts of Walton and Paris. Arab. Vers. 
of Abu Said, Libri Gen. Ex. et Lev. by Kuenen, 
8vo. Lugd. 18a 1-4; also Van Vloten, Specimen, 
&c., 4to. Lugd. 1803. Literae ad ScaKger, &c. 
(by De Sacy) and Epistola ad Ludolph. (Bruns), 
in Eichhoin's Repertorium, xiii. Also, with Letters 
to De Sacy himself, in Notices et Extraits des 
MSS. Par. 1831. Chronicon Samaritanum, by 
Juynboll, 4to. Lej'den 1848. Specimen of Samar. 
Commentary on Gen. xlix. by Schnurrer, in Eich- 
horn's Ilepert. xvi. Carra. Samar. Gescnius, 4to. 
Lips. 1824. 

2. Dissertations, &c. J. Morinus, Exercitatioiies, 

"• The briefest rendering ot D''1T0D which we can 
give— a full explanation of tlie term would exceed our 

» On this subject the I'ent. contains nothing explicit. 
Thej- at first rejected that dogma, but adopted it at a later 
period, perliaps since I'ositheus; comp. llie saylnRs of 


&c., Par. 1631 ; Opuscida Hehr. Samaritica, Par. 
1657; Antiquitates Eccl. Orient., Lond. 1682. 
J. H. Hottinger, Exercit. Anti-morinianae, &c., 
Tigur. 1 644. Walton, De Pent. Sam. in Prologorn . 
ad Folyglott. Castell, Animadversimws, in Poly- 
glott, vi. Cellarius, fforae Samaritanae, Ciz. 1 682 ; 
also Collectanea, in Ugolini, xsii. Leusden, Philo- 
logus Hehr. Utraj. 1686, St. Jlorinus, Exercit. 
de Ling, primaevd, Utr. 1 694. Schwai-z, E.vercita- 
tiones, &c. Houbigant, Prolegomena, &c., Par. 
1746. Kennicott, State of the Heh. Text, &c., ii. 
1759. J. G. Cai-pzov, Crit. Sacri ]'. T. Pt. 1, 
Lips. 1728. Hassencamp, Entdeckter Urspmng, 
&c. O. G. Tychsen, Disputatio, &c., Biitz. 1765:« 
Bauer, Crit. Sacr. Gesenius, De Pent. Sam. 
Origine, &c., Hal. 1815 ; Samar. Tlieohgia, &c., 
Hal. 1822; Anecdota Exon. Lips. 1824. Heng- 
stenberg, Auth. des Pent. Mazade Sur l' Origine, 
&c.. Gen. 1830. M. Stuart, A'. Amer. Rev. 
Frankel, Vorstudien, Leipz. 1841. Kirchheim, 
tnOIC^ ''DID, Frankfort 1851. The Einleitvngen 
of Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Vater, DeWette, Havernick, 
Keil, &c. The Geschichtcn of Jost, Herzfeld, kc. 

3. Versions. Winei-, Dc Vers. Pent. Sam. 
De Sacy, Mem. sur la Vers. Arabe des Licres de 
Moise, in Mem. de Litterature, xlix. Par. 1808 ; 
n\so L'Etat actuel des Samaritains, Par. 1812; 
De Versione Samaritano-Arahica, &c., in Eich- 
horn's AUg. Bibliotheh, x. 1-176. [E. D.] 

SAM'ATUS (Sa^arrfs : Semedius). One of the 
sons of Ozora in the list of 1 Esd. ix. 34. The 
whole verse is verv corru]>t. 

SAMEI'US (Sajuaros). Shemaiaii of the 
sons of Harim (1 Esd. ix. 21 ; comp. Ezi-. x. 21). 

SAM'GAE-NE'BO (•inri^pp : Samegar- 
nehu). One of the princes or generals of the king 
of Babylon who commanded the victorious army of 
the Chaldaeans at the captui-e of Jerusalem (Jer. 
xxxix. 3). The text of the LXX. is corrupt. The 
two names " Samgar-nebo, Sarsechim," are there 
written "ZafxayuiQ koi NajSoun-axap- The JVebo 
is the Chaldaean Mercury ; about the Samojar, 
opinions are divided. V"on Bohlen suggested that 
from the Sanscrit sangara, " war," might be formed 
sdngara, " warrior," and that this was the original 
of Samgar. 

SA'MI (TfUjSis; Alex. 2a/8ei: Tohi). Shobai 
(1 Esd. V. 28; comp. Ezr. ii. 42). 

SA'MIS (2o/t€is : om. in Vulg.). SiiniEi 13 
(1 Esd. ix. 34 ; comp. Ezr. x. 38). 

SAM'LAH (n^pb : 2a/ua5<£; Ale.T. SaXojUci: 
Semla), Gen. x.xxvi. 36, 37; 1 Chr. i. 47, 48. 
One of the kings of Edom, successor to Hadad oi- 
Hadar. Samlah, whose name signifies " a gar- 
ment," was of Masrekah; that being probably 
the chief city during his reign. This mention of 
a separate city as belonging to each ^almost with- 
out exception) of the "kings" of Edom, sucjgests 
that the Edomite kingdom consisted of a confederacy 
of tribes, and that the chief city of the reigning 
tribe was the metropolis of the whole. [E. S. P.] 

SAM'MUS (lan/xois: Samus). Shema (1 Esd. 
ix. 43 ; comp. Keh. viii. 4). 

Jehndda-hadassi and Alassudi, that one of the two Sama- 
ritan sects believes in the Resurrection ; Kpipiiaiiius, 
Ix-ontius, Gregory the Gnat, testify unanimously to 
their former unbelief in this article of their present faith. 
^ nS. Lightfoot"lmcelUi"(.') 


SA'MOS (Idfxos). A very illustrious Greek 
island oft' that part of Asia Minor where Ionia 
touches Caria. For its history, from the time 
when it was a powerful member of the Ionic con- 
I'eileracy to its leceut stniggles against Turkey 
during the war of independence, and since, we 
must ''refer to the Diet, of Greek and Bom. Geog." 
Samos is a very lolty and commanding island ; the 
word, in fact, denotes a height, especially by the 
sea-shore: hence, also, the name of Samotheacia, 
or " the Thracian Samos." The Ionian Samos 
comes before our notice in the detailed account of 
St. Paul's return from his third missionary jour- 
ney (Acts XX. 15). He had been at Chios, and 
was about to proceed to Jliletus, having passed 
by Ephesus without touching there. The topo- 
graphical notices given incidentally by St. Luke are 
most exact. The night was spent at the anchorage 
of Trogyllium, in the narrow strait between 
Samos and the extremity of the mainland-ridge of 
Mycale. This spot is famous both for the great 
battle of the old Greeks against the Persians in B.C. 
479, and also % a gallant action of the modern 
Greeks against the Turks in 1824. Here, how- 
ever, it is more natural (especially as we know, 
from 1 Mace. xv. 23, that Jews resided here) to 
allude to the meeting of Herod the Great with 
JIarcus Agrippa in Samos, whence resulted many 
privileges to the Jews (Joseph. Ant. xvi. 2, §2, 4;. 
At this time and when St. Paul was there it was 
politically a "free city" in the province of Asia. 
Various travellers (Tournefort, Pococke, Dallaway, 
PlOss) have described this island. We may refer 
particularly to a very recent work on the subject, 
Description de I'ile de Patmos et de rile de 
Samos (Paris, 1856), by V. Guerin, who spent 
two months in the island. [J. S. H.] 

SAMOTHRA'CIA (^afioepaKv : Samothra- 
cia). The mention of this island in the account of 
St. Paul's first voyage to Europe (Acts xvi. 11) is for 
two reasons worthy of careful notice. In the first 
place, being a very lofty and conspicuous island, it is 
an excellent landmark for sailors, and must have been 
full in view, if the weather was clear, throughout 
that voyage irom Troas to Keapolis. From the shore 
at Troas Samothrace is seen towering over Imbros 
(Horn. //. xiii. 12, 13; Kinglake's Eothen, p. 64), 
and it is similarly a marked object in the view fi-om 
the hills between Neapolis and Philippi (Clarke's 
Travels, ch. xiii.). These allusions tend to give 
vividness to one of the most important voyages 
that ever took place. Secondly, this voyage was 
made with a fair wind. Not only are we told that 
it occupied only parts of two days, whereas ou a 
subsequent return-voyage (Acts xx. 6) the time 
spent at sea was five : but the technical word here 
used (ev6vSpofji.v<rafiev) implies that they ran be- 
fore the wind. Now the position of Samothrace is 
exactly such as to correspond with these notices, 
and thus incidentally to confii-m the accuracy of a 
'most artless narrative. St. Paul and his companions 
anchored for the night oflT Samothrace. The ancient 
citv, and therefore probably the usual anchorage, 
w;is on the N. side, which would be sufficiently 
sheltered from a S.E. wind. It may be added, as a 
further practical consideration not to be overlooked, 
that such a wind would be favourable for over- 
cominiy tJie opposing current, which sets southerly 

» A curious illustration of the renown of the Samian 
earthenware is furnished by the Vulgate rendering of 
Is xlv. 9 ■ " 'I'e.-ta <le Samiis terrae." 



after leaving the Dardanelles, and easterly between 
Samothrace and the mainland. Fuller details are 
given in Life and Epp. of St. Paul, 2nd ed. i. 
335-338. 'The chief classical associations of this 
island are mythological and connected with the 
mysterious di\-inities called Cabeiri. Perseus took 
lefuge here atler his defeat by the Romans at 
Pydna. In St. Paul's time Samothrace had, ac- 
cording to Pliny, the privileges of a small fi-ee state, 
though it was doubtless considered a dependency of 
the province of Macedonia. [J. S. H.] 

SAMP'SAMES (2aju»|/t{juT)s, 'Xa^i.^^/iK-ns: Lamp- 
sacus, Samsames), a name which occurs in the list 
of those to whom the Romans are said to have sent 
letters in favour of the Jews (1 Mace. xv. 23). The 
name is probably not that of a sovereign (as it appears 
to be taken in A. V.), but of a place, which Grimm 
identifies with Samsun on the coast of the Black 
Sea, between Siuope and Trebizond. [B. F. W.] 

SAM'SON (|^C^'PK', i.e. Shimshon: 2a/ii//c^'j' : 
" little sun," or " sunlike ;" but according to 
Joseph. Ant. v. 8, §4 "strong:" if the root 
shemesh has the signification of "awe" which 
Gesenius ascribes to it, the name Samson would 
seem naturally to allude to the " awe " and 
" astonishment " wth which the father and mother 
looked upon the angel who announced Samson's 
birth— see Judg. xiii. 6, 18-20, and Joseph. /. c), 
son of Manoah, a man of the town of Zorah, in 
the tribe of Dan, on the border of Judah (Josh. xv. 
33, xis. 41). The miraculous circumstances of his 
birth are recorded in Judg. xiii. ; and the three fol- 
lowing chapters are devoted to the history of his life 
and exploits. Samson takes his place in Scripture, 
(l)as a judge — an office which he filled for twenty 
years (Judg. xv. 20, xvi. 31) ; (2) as a Nazarite 
(Judg. xiii. 5, xvi. 17); and, (3) as one endowed 
with supernatural power by the Spirit of the Lord 
(Judg. xiii. 25, xiv. 6, 19, xv. 14). 

(1.) As a judge his authority seems to have been 
limited to the district bordering upon the country 
of the Philistines, and his action as a deliverer does 
not seem to have extended beyond desultory attacks 
upon the dominant Philistines, by which their hold 
upon Israel was weakened, and the way prepared 
for the futui-e emancipation of the Israelites from 
their yoke. It is evident from Judg. xiii. 1,5, xv. 
9-11, 20, and the whole history, that the Israelites, 
or at least Judah and Dan, which are the only tribes 
mentioned, were subject to the Philistines through 
the whole of Samson's judgeship; so that, of course, 
Samson's twenty years of office would be included 
in the forty years of the Philistine dominion. From 
the angel's speech to Samson's mother (Judg. xiii. 
5), it appears further that the Israelites were 
already subject to the Philistines at his birth ; and 
as Samson cannot have begun to be judge before 
he was twenty years of age, it follows that his 
judgeship must about have coincided with the last 
twenty years of Philistine dominion. But when 
we turn to the First Book of Samuel, and especially 
to vii. 1-14, we find that the Philistine dominion 
ceased under the judgeship of Samuel. Hence it is 
obvious to conclude that the early part of Samuel's 
judgeship coincided with the latter part of Samson's ; 
and that the capture of the ark by the Pliilistines 
in the time of Eli occurred during Samson's life- 
time. There are besides several points in the re- 
spective narratives of the times of Samson and Sa- 
muel which indicate great proximity. First, there 



is the geneial proinineiice of the I'hil.stines iu their 
)-elatioa to Israel. Secoiidl}', there is the remark- 
able coincidence of botli Samson and Samuel being 
Nazarites (.ludg. xiii. 5, xvi. 17, compared with 
1 Sam. i. 11). It looks as if the great exploits of 
the young Danite Nazarite had suggested to Hannah 
the consecration of her son in like manner, or, at all 
evtnts, as if lor some reason the Nazarite vow was 
at that time prevalent. No other mention of Na- 
zaiites occurs iu the Scrijtture history till Amos ii. 
11, 12 ; and even theie the allusion seems to be to 
Samuel and Samson. Thirdly, there is a similar 
notice of the house of Dagon in Judg. xvi. 23, and 
1 Sam. V. 2. Fourthly, the lords of the Philis- 
tines are mentioned in a similar way in Judg. xvi. 
8, 18, 27, and in 1 Sam. vii. 7. All of which, 
taken together, indicates a close proximity between 
the times of Samson and Samuel. There does not 
seem, however, to be any means of fixing the time 
of Samson's judgeship more precisely. The effect of 
his prowess must have been more of a preparatory 
kind, by arousing the cov.'ed spirit of his people, 
and shaking tlie insolent security of the Philistines, 
than in tlie way of decisive victory or deliverance. 
There is no allusion whatever to other parts of 
Israel during Samson's judgeship, except the single 
fact of the men of the border tribe of Judah, 3000 
in number, fetching him from the rock Etam to 
deliverjiim up to the Philistines (Judg. xv. 9-13). 
The whole narrative is entirely local, and, like the 
following story concerning Micah (Judg. xvii. xviii.), 
seems to be taken from the annals of the tribe of 

(2.) As a Nazarite, Samson exhibits the law in 
Num. vi. in full practice. [Nazarite.] The emi- 
nence of such Nazarites as Samson and Samuel 
would tend to give that dignity to the profession 
which is alluded to in Lam. iv. 7, 8. 

(3.) Samson is one of those who are distinctly 
spoken of in Scripture as endowed with super- 
natural power by the Spirit of the Lord. " The 
Spirit of the Lord began to move him at times in 
Mahaneh-Dan." " The Spirit of the Lord came 
mightily upon him, and the cords that were upon 
his arms became as flax burnt with fire." " The 
Spirit of the Lord came upon him, and he went 
down to Ashkelon, and slew thirty men of them." 

» " Hercules once went to Egypt, and there the inha- 
bitants took him, and, putting a chaplet on his head, led 
him out in solemn procession, intending to offer him in 
sacrifice to Jupiter. For a while he submitted quietly ; 
but when they led him up to the altar, and began the 
ceremonies, he put forth his strength and slew them all '' 
(Hawlins. Herod, book ii. 45). 

The passage from Lycophron, with the scholion, quoted 
by Bochart {Hieroz. pars ii. lib. v. cap. xii.), where Her- 
cules is said to have been three nights in the belly of the 
sea-monster, and to have come out with the loss of all his 
hair, is also curious, and seems to be a compound of the 
stories of Samson and Jonah. To this may be added the 
coime.\ion between Samson, considered as derived from 
Shemesh, "the Sun," and the designation of Moui, the 
Egyptian Hercules, as " Son of the Sun," worshipped also 
under the name Sem, which Sir G. Wilkinson compares 
with Samson. The 'I'yrian Hercules (whose temple at Tyre 
is described by Herodot. ii. 44), he also tells us, •' was ori- 
ginally the Sun, and the same as Biud" (Kawl. Herod, ii. 
44, note 1). The conne.xion between the Phoenician Baal 
(called Baal Shemen, Baal Shemesh, and Baal Hamman), and 
Hercules is well known. Gesenius ( 77ies. s. v. py^) tells us 
that, in cerlaiu Phoenician inscriptions, which are accom- 
panied by a Greek translation, IJaal is rendered Herakle,':, 
and that "the Tyrian Hercules" is the constant (i reek 


But, on the other hand, after his locks were cut, 
and liis strength was gone from him, it is said 
" He wist not that the Lord was depaited from 
him" (Judg. xiii. 2.5, xiv. 6, 19, xv. 14, xvi. 2J). 
The phrase, " the Spirit of the Lord came upon 
him," is common to him with Othniel and Gideon 
(Judg. iii. 10, vi. 34/ ; but the connexion of super- 
natural power with the integrity of the Nazaritic 
vow, and the particular gift of' great strength of 
body, as seen in tearing in pieces a lion, bieaking 
his bonds asunder, carrying the gates of the city 
upon his back, and throwing down the pillars which 
supported the house of Dagon, are quite peculiar to 
Samson. Indeed, his whole character and history 
have no e.xact paiallel in Scripture. It is easy, 
however, to see how forcibly the Israelites would 
be taught, by such an example, that their national 
stiength lay iu their complete separation from 
idolatry, and consecration to the true God ; and that 
He could give them power to subdue their mightiest 
enemies, if only they were true to His service 
(comp. 1 Sam. ii. 10). 

It is an interesting question wlMther anv of the 
legends which have attached themselves to the name 
of Hercules may have been derived from Phoenician 
traditions of the stiength of Samson. The com- 
bination of great strength with submission to the 
power of women ; the slaying of the Nemeaean lion ; 
the coming by his death at the hands of his wife ; 
and especially the story told by Herodotus of the 
captivity of Hercules in Egypt,* are certainly re- 
markable coincidences. Phoenician traders might 
easily have carried stories concerning the Hebrew 
hero to the dilferent countries where they traded, 
especially Greece and Italy; and such stories would 
have been moulded according to the taste or ima- 
gination of those who heard them. The following 
description of Hercules given by C. 0. Miiller 
(^Dorians, b. ii. c. 12) might almost liave been 
written for Samson : — " The highest degree of 
human suffering and courage is attributed to Her- 
cules : his character is as noble as could be con- 
ceived in those rude and early times ; but he is by 
no means represented as free 'from the blemishes of 
human nature ; on the contrary, he is frequently 
subject to wild, ungovernable passions, when the 
noble indignation and anger of the suffering hero 

designation of the Baal of Tyre. He also gives many Car- 
thaginian inscriptions to Baal Hamman, which he renders 
Baal Solaris; and also a sculpture in which Baal Ham- 
man's head is surrounded with rays, and which has an 
image of the sun on the upper part of the monument 
(Mon. Phoen. i. 171 ; ii. tab. 21). Another evidence of 
the identity of the Phoenician Baal and Hercules may be 
found in BauU, near Baiae, a place sacred to Hercules 
(" locus Herculis," Serv.), but evidently so called from 
Baal. Thirlwall (Hist, of Greece) ascribes to the nume 
rous temples built by the Phoenicians in honour of Baal 
in their different settlements the Greek fables of the 
labours and journeys of Hercules. Buchart thinks the 
custom described, by Ovid (Fast, liv.) of tying a lighted 
torch between two foxes in the circus, in memoiy of the 
damage once done to the harvest by a fox with burning 
haj' and straw tied to it, was derived from the Phoenicians, 
and is clearly to be traced to the history of Sam.son (Hieroz. 
purs i. lib. iii. cap. xiii.). From all which arises a con- 
siderable probability that the Greek and Latin conception 
of Hercules in regard lo his strength was derived from 
ir'hoenician stories and reminiscences of the great Hebrew 
hero Samson. Some learned men cormect the name Her- 
cules with Samson etymologically. (See Sir G. Wilkinson's 
note in Rawlinson's Herod, ii. 43 ; Patrick, On Judg. xvi. 
30 ; Cornel, a Lapide, &c.) But none of these etymolugies 
are very convincing. 


degenerate into frenzy. Every crime, however, is 
atoned for by some new suilering; but nothing 
breaks his invincible courage, until, purilied from 
eartlily corruption, lie ascends Mount Olympus." 
And again : " Hercules Was a jovial guest, and not 
backward in enjoying himself. ... It was Hercules, 
above all other heroes, whom mythology placed in 
ludicrous situations, and sometimes made the butt 
of the buffoonery of others. The Cercopes are 
represented as alternately amusing and annoying 
the hero, in worlcs of art they are often repi-e- 
sented as satyi-s who rob the hero of his quiver, 
bow, and club. Hercules, annoyed at their insults, 
binds two of them to a pole, and marches off with 
his prize. ... It also seems that mirth and buffoonery 
were often combined with the festivals of Hercules: 
thus at Athens there was a society of sixty men, 
who on the festival of the Diomean Hercules 
attacked and amused themselves and others with 
sallies of wit." Whatever is thought, however, of 
such coincidences, it is certain that the histoij of 
Samson is an historical, and not an allegorical nar- 
rative. It has also a distinctly supernattiral element 
which cannot be explained away. The history, fts 
we now have it, must have been written several 
centuries after Samson's death (Judg. xv. 19, 20, 
xviii. 1, 30, xix. 1), though probably taken from 
the annals of the tribe of Dan. Jose])hus has 
given it pretty fully, but with alterations and em- 
bellishments of his own, after his manner. For 
example, he does not make Samson eat any of the 
honey which he took out of the hive, doubtless as 
unclean, and unfit for a Nazarite, but makes him 
give it to his wife. The only mention of Samson 
in the N. T. is that in Heb. xi. 32, where he is 
coupled with Gideon, Barak, and Jephthah, and 
spoken of as one of those who " through faith 
waxed valiant in fight, and turned to flight the 
armies of the aliens." See, besides the places quoted 
in the course of this article, a full article in Winer, 
Realwb. ; Ewald, Geschichte, ii. 516, &c. ; Ber- 
theau. On Judijes ; Bayle's Diet. [A. C. H.] 

SAM'UEL ("pK-im, i.e. Shemiiel: :^afjLovi]\ : 

Arabic, Sainwil, or Aschmouyl , see D'Herbelot, under 
this last namej. Different derivations have been 
given. (1) 7K D^, " name of God :" so appa- 
rently Origen (Eus. H. E. vi. 25), 0eo/cA.7;Tos. 

(2) bx rm, « placed by God." (3) "pN 'piNE^, 
"asked of God"(l Sam. i. 20). Josephus inge- 
niously makes it correspond to the well-known Greek 
name Theaetetus. (4) h^ V^ty^, " heard of God." 
This, which may have the same meaning as the pre- 
vious derivation, is the most obvious. The last Judge, 
the first of the regular succession of Prophets, and the 
founder of the monarchy. So important a position 
did he hold in Jewish history as to have given his 
name to the sacred book, now divided into two, 
which covers the whole period of the first establish- 
ment of the kingdom, con-esponding to the manner 
in which the name of Moses has hieen assigned to 
the sacred book, now divided into five, which covers 
the period of the foundation of the Jewish Church 
itself. In flict no character of equal magnitude had 
arisen since the death of the great Lawgiver. 

He was the sou of Elkanah, an Ephrathite or 
Ephraimite, and Hannah or Anna. His fiither is 
one of the few private citizens in whose household 
we find polygamy. It may possibly have arisen 
from the irregularity of the period. 

The descent of Elkanah is involved in gi-eat ob- 

VOL. U. 



scurity. In 1 Sam. i. 1 be is described as an 
I'^phraimite. In 1 Chr. vi. 22, 23 he is made a de- 
scendant of Knrah the Levite. Hengstenberg (on 
Vs. Ixxviii. 1) and Ewald (ii. 433) explain this by 
supposing that tlie Levites were occasionally incor- 
porated into the tribes amongst whom they dwelt. 
The question, howevei-, is of no practical impoit- 
ance, because, even if Samuel were a Levite, he 
certainly was not a Priest by descent. 

Plis birthplace is one of the vexed questions of 
sacred geography, as his descent is of sacred gene- 
alogy. [See Ramathaim-Zophim.] All that ap- 
peal's with certainty from the accounts is that it 
was in the hills of Ephraim, and (as may be iu- 
fei-rcd from its name) a double height, used for the 
piu-pose of beacons or outlookers (1 Sam. i. 1). At 
the foot of the hill was a well (1 Sam. xix. 22). 
On the brow of its two summits was the city. It 
never lost its hold on Samuel, who in later life made 
it his fi.xed abode. 

The combined family must have been large. 
Penimiah had several children, and Hannah had, 
besides Samuel, three sons and two daughters. But 
of these nothing is known, unless the names of the 
sons are those enumerated in 1 Chr. vi. 26, 27. 

It is on the mother of Samuel that our chief 
attention is fixed in the account of his birth. She 
is desciibed as a woman of a high religious mission. 
Almost a Nazarite by practice (1 Sam. i. 15), and 
a prophetess in her gifts (1 Sam. ii. 1), she sought 
fiom God the gift of the child for which she longed 
with a passionate devotion of silent prayer, of which 
there is no other example in the 0. T., and when 
the son was granted, the name which he bore, and 
thus fil'st introduced into the world, expressed her 
sense of the urgency of her entreaty — Samuel, " the 
Asked or Heard of God." 

Living in the great age of vows, she had before 
his birth dedicated him to the office of a Nazarite. 
As soon as he was weaned, she herself with her 
husband bi-ought him to the Tabernacle at Shiloh, 
where she had received the first intimation of his 
birth, and there solemnly consecrated him. The 
form of consecration was similar to that with which 
the irregular priesthood of Jeroboam was set apart 
in later times (2 Chr. xiii. 9) — a bullock of three 
years old (LXX.), loaves (LXX.), an ephah of ffour, 
and a skin of wine (1 Sam. i. 24). First took place 
the usual sacrifices (LXX.) by Elkanah himself — 
then, after the introduction of the child, the special 
sacrifice of the bullock. Then his mother made 
him over to Eli (i. 25, 28), and (according to the 
Hebrew text, but not the LXX.) the child himself 
performed an act of worship. 

The hymn which followed on this consecration 
is the first of the kind in the sacred volume. It is 
possible that, like many of the Psalms, it may have 
been enlarged in later times to suit gi'eat occasions 
of victory and the like. But verse 5 specially 
applies to this event, and verses 7, 8 may well 
express the sense eptertained by the prophetess of 
the coming revolution in the fortunes of her son and 
of her country. 

From this time the child is shut up in the 
tabernacle. The priests famished him with a sacred 
garaient, an ephod, made, like their own, of white 
linen, though of inferior quality, and his mother 
every year-, apparently at the only time of their 
meeting, gave him a little mantle reaching down to 
his feet, such as was worn only by high personages, 
or women, over the other dress, and such as he 
retained, as his bado-e, till the latest times of his 

4 C 



life. [Mantle, vol. ii. p. 231 6.] He seems to 
have slept within the Holiest Place (LXX., 1 Sam. 
iii. 3), and his special duty was to put out, as it 
would seem, the sacred candlestick, and to open the 
doors at sunrise. 

In this way his childhood was passed. It was 
whilst thus sleeping in the tabernacle that he re- 
ceived his first prophetic call. The stillness of the 
night — the sudden voice — the childlike misconcep- 
tion—the venerable Eli — the contrast between the 
terrible doom and the gentle creature who has to 
announce it — give to this portion of the narrative 
a universal interest. It is this side of Samuel's 
career that has been so well caught in the well- 
known picture by Sir Joshua Reynolds. 

From this moment the prophetic character of 
Samuel was established. His words were treasured 
up, and Shiloli became the resoii of those who 
came to hear him (iii. 19-21). 

In the overthrow of the sanctuary, which fol- 
lowed shortly on this vision, we hear not what 
became of Samuel.* He ne.\t appeals, probably 
twenty years afterwards, suddenly amongst the 
people, warning them against their idolatrous prac- 
tices. He convened an assembly at Mizpeh — pro- 
bably the place of that name in the tribe of Ben- 
jamin — and there with a symbolical rite, expressive 
partly of deep humiliation, partly of the libations 
of a treaty, they poured water on the ground, they 
fasted, and they entreated Samuel to raise the 
piercing cry, for which he was known, in suppli- 
cation tu God for them. It was at the moment 
that he was offering up a sacriKce, and sustaining 
this loud cry (compare the situation of Pausanias 
before the battle of Plataea, Herod, is. 61), that 
the Philistine host suddenly burst upon them. A 
violent thunderstorm, and (according to Josephus, 
Ant. vi. 2, §2) an earthquake, came to the timely 
assistance of Israel. The Philistines fled, and, 
exactly at the spot where twenty years before they 
had obtained their gieat victory, they were totally 
routed. A stone was set up, which long remained 
as a memorial of Samuel's triumph, and gave to 
the place its name of Eben-ezer, " the Stone of 
Help," which has thence passed into Christian 
phraseology, and become a common name of Non- 
coufoi-mist chapels (1 Sam. vii. 12). The old Ca- 
naanites, whom the Philistinas had dispossessed in 
the outskirts of the Judaean hills, seem to have 
helped in the battle, and a large portion of territory 
was recovered (1 Sam. vi. 14). This was Samuel's 
first and, as far as we know, his only military 
achievement. But, as in the case of the earlier 
chiefs who bore that name, it was apparently this 
wliich raised him to the office of " Judge " (comp. 
1 Sam. xii. 11, where he is thus reckoned with 
Jerubbaal, Bedan, and Jephthah ; and Ecclus. xlvi. 
15-18). He visited, in discharge of his duties 
as ruler, the three chief sanctuaries (eV irucn rols 
T)yia<Tixivois tovtois) on the west of the Jordan — • 
Bethel, Gilgal, and Jlizpeh (1 Sam. vii. 16). His 
own residence was still his natfve city, liamah or 
Kamathaim, which he further consecrated by an 
altar (vii. 17). Here he married, and two sons 
gi'ew up to repeat wider his eyes the same per- 
version of high office that he had himself witnessed 
in his ciiildhood in the case of the two sons of Eli. 

" According to the Mussulman tradition, Samuel's birth 
is granted in answer to the prayers of the nation on the 
overthruw of the sanctuary and loss of the ark (l»'Her- 
belot, Aschmouyl). This, though false in the letter, is true 
to the spirit of Samuel's life. 


One was Abiah, the other Joel, sometimes called 
simply " the second " {vashni, 1 Chr. vi. 28). In 
his old age, according to the quasi-hereditary prin- 
ciple, already adopted by previous Judges, he shared 
his power with them, and they exercised their func- 
tions at the southern frontier in Beersheba (1 Sara, 
viii. 1-4). 

2. Down to this point in Samuel's life there is 
but little to distinguish his career from that of his 
predecessors. Like many characters in later days, 
had he died in youth his fame would hardly have 
been greater than that of Gideon or Samson. He 
was a Judge, a Nazarite, a warrior, and (to a cer- 
tain point) a prophet. 

But his peculiar position in the sacred narrative 
turns on the events which follow. He is the 
inaugurator of the transition from what is com- 
monly called the theocracy to the monarchy. The 
misdemeanour of his own sons, in receiving bribes, 
and in exlorting exorbitant interest on loans (1 Sam. 
viii. 3, 4), precipitated the catastrophe which had 
been long preparing. The people demanded a king. 
Josephus {Ant. vi. 3, §3) describes the shock to 
Samuel's mind, " beciiuse of his inborn sense of 
justice, because of his hatred of kings, as so far 
inferior to the aristocratic form of goveniment, 
which conferred a godlike character on those who 
lived under it." For the whole night he lay fasting 
and sleepless, in the perplexity of doubt and diffi- 
culty. In the vision of that night, as recorded by 
the saci-ed historian, is given the dark side of the 
new institution, on which Samuel dwells on the 
following day (1 Sam. viii. 9-18). 

This presents his reluctance to receive the new 
order of things. The whole narrative of the recep- 
tion and consecration of Saul gives his acquiescence 
in it. [Saul.J 

The final conflict of feeling and surrender of his 
office is given in the last assembly over which he 
presided, and in his subsequent relations with Saul. 
The assembly was held at Gilgal, immediately after 
the victory over the Ammonites. The monarchy was 
a second time solemnly inaugurated, and (according 
to the LXX.) " Samuel" (in the Hebrew text 
" Saul ") " and all the men of Israel rejoiced 
greatly." Then takes place his farewell address. 
By this time the long flowing locks on which no 
razor had ever passed were white with age (xii. 2). 
He appeals to their knowledge of his integrity. 
Whatever might be the lawless habits of the chiefs 
of those times — Hophui, Phinehas, or his own sons 
— he had kept aloof from all. No ox or ass had 
he taken from their stalls — no bribe to obtain his 
judgment (LXX., e|iA.a(r^a) — not even a sandal 
{uir6SriiJLa, LXX., and Ecclus. xlvi. 19). It is this 
appeal, and the response of the people, that has 
made Grotius call him the Jewish Aristides. He 
then sums up the new situation in which they have 
placed themselves ; and, although " the wickedness 
of asking a king" is still strongly insisted on, and 
the unusual portent *> of a thunderstorm in May or 
June, in answer to Samuel's pn.yer, is urged as a 
sign of Divine displeasure (xii. 16-19), the general 
tone of the condemnation is much softened from 
that which was pronounced on the first intimation 
of the change. The first king is lepeatedly acknow- 
ledged as " the Messiah " or anointed of the Lord 

b According to the Mussulman traditions, his anger was 
occasioned by the people rejecting Saul as not being of the 
tribe of Judah. The sign that Saul was the king was the 
liquefaction of the sacred oil in his presence and the re- 
covery of Ihe tabernacle (D'Herhclot, Aaclinioiti/l). 


(xii. 3, 5), the future prosperity of the nation ii 
declared to depend on their use or misuse of the 
new constitution, and Samuel retires with expres- 
sions of goodwill and hope: — " 1 will teach you the 
good and the ri2;ht way . . . only fear the I.oid ..." 
(1 Sam. xii. 2:i', 24). 

It is the most signal example afforded in the 
0. T. of a great character reconciling himself to a 
changed order of things, and of the Divine sanction 
resting on his acquiescence. For this reason it is 
that Athanasius is bv Basil called the Samuel of 
the Church (Basil, Ep. 82). 

o. His subsequent relations with Saul are of the 
same mixed kind. The two institutions which they 
respectively represented ran on side by side. Samuel 
was still Judge. He judged Israel " all the days of 
his life " (vii. 1 5), and from time to time came across 
the king's path. But these interventions are chiefly 
in another capacity, which this is the place to unfold. 

Samuel is called emphatically " the Prophet " 
(Acts iii. 24, xiii. 20). To a certain extent this 
was in consequence of the gift which he shared in 
common witli others of his time. He was especially 
known in his own acje as " Samuel the Seer " 
(I Chr. ix. 22, xxvi. 28, xxix. 29j. "I am the 
seer," was hi* answer to those who asked " Where 
is the seer?" " Where is the seer's house?" (1 Sam. 
ix. 11, 18, 19). " Seer," the ancient name, was not 
yet superseded by "Prophet" (1 Sam. ix.). By 
this name, Samuel Videns and Samuel 6 p\eiroDv, 
he is called in the Acta S/mctorum. Of the three 
modes by which Divine communications were then 
made, "by dreams, Urim and Thummim, and pro- 
phets," the first was that by which the Divine will 
was made known to Samuel (1 Sam. iii. 1, 2 ; Jos. 
Ant. V. 10, §4). " The Lord uncovered his ear " to 
whisper into it in the stillness of the night the 
messages that were to be delivered. It is the first 
distinct intimation of the idea of " lievdation " to 
a human being (see Gesenius, in voc. H?]!). He 
was consulted far and near on the small affairs of life ; 
loaves of " bread," or " tlie fourth pai t of a shekel of 
silver," were paid for the answers (1 Sam. ix. 7, 8). 

From this faculty, combined with his office of 
ruler, an awful reverence grew up round him. No 
sacrificial feast was thought complete without his 
blessing (ib. ix. 13). When he appeared suddenly 
elsewhere for the same purpose, the villagers " trem- 
bled " at his approach (1 Sam. xvi. 4, 5). A pecu- 
liar virtue was believec^to reside in his intercession. 
He was conspicuous in later times amongst those 
that '^ call upon the name of the Lord" (Vs. xcix. 
6 ; 1 Sam. xii. 18), and was placed with Moses as 
" standing " for prayer, in a special sense, " before 
the Lord " (Jer. xv. 1). It was the hist consolation 
he left in his paiting address that he would " pray 
to the Lord" for the people (1 Sam. xii. 19, 23). 
There was something peculiar in the long-sustained 
cry or shout of supplication, which seemed to draw 
down as by force tiie Divine answer (1 Sam. vii. 
8, 9). All night long, in agitated moments, "he 
cried unto the Lord ' (1 Sam. xv. 11). 

But there are two other points which more 
especially placed him at the head of the prophetic 
order as it afterwards appeared. The first is 
brought out in his relation with Saul, the second 
in his relation with David. 



<: Agag is described by Josephus (^Ant. vl. 7, §2 ) as a 
chief of magnificent appearance; and hence rescued from 
destruction. This is perhaps an inference from the word 
ri!nj?D, which tlif Vulgate transl.ites pinguissimv.':. 

(ci). He represents the independence of the moral 
law, of the Divine Will, as distinct from regal or 
sacerdotal enactments, which is so remarkable a 
characteristic of all the later prophets. As we 
have seen, he was, if a Levite, yet certainly not a 
Priest ; and all the attempts to identify his oppo- 
sition to Saul with a hierarchical interest are 
founded on a complete misconception of the facts 
of the case. From the time of the overthrow of 
Shiloh, he never appeais in the remotest connexion 
with the priestly order. Amongst all the places 
included in his personal or administrative visits, 
neither Shiloh, nor Nob, nor Gibeon, the seats of 
the sacerdotal caste, are ever mentioned. When he 
counsels Saul, it is not as the priest but as the 
prophet ; when he sacrifices or blesses the sacrifice, 
it is not as the priest, but either as an individual 
Israelite of eminence, or as a ruler, like Saul him- 
self". Saul's sin in both cases where he came into 
collision with Samuel, was not of intruding into 
sacerdotal functions, but of disobedience to the 
prophetic voice. The first was that of not waiting 
for Samuel's arrival, according to the sign given 
by Samuel at his original meeting at Ramah (1 
Sam. X. 8, xiii. 8) ; the second w;:s that of not car- 
rying out the stern prophetic injunction for the 
destruction of the Amalekites. When, on that 
occasion, the aged Prophet called the captive '^ prince 
before him, and with his own hands hacked him 
limb from limb,^ in retribution for the desolation 
he had brought into tlie homes of Israel, and thus 
offered up his mangled remains almost as a human 
sacrifice (" before the Lord in Gilgal "), we see the 
representative of the older part of the Jewish his- 
tory. But it is the -true prophetic utterance such 
as breathes through the psalmists and prophets when 
he says to Saul in words which, from their poetical 
form, must have become fixed in the national me- 
moi-y, " To obey is better than sacrifice, and to 
hearken than the fat of rams." 

The parting was not one of rivals, but of dear 
though divided friends. The King thi-ows himself 
on the Prophet with all his force ; not without a 
vehement effort (Jos. Ant. vi. 7, §5) the prophet 
tears himself away. The long mantle by whicii 
he was always known is rent in the struggle ; and, 
like Ahijah after him, Samuel was in this the 
omen of the coming rent in the monarchy. They 
parted, each to his house, to meet no more. But 
a long shadow of giief fell over the prophet. 
" Samuel mourned for Saul." " It grieved Samuel 
fcr Saul." " How long wilt thou mourn for Saul ?" 
(1 Sam. XV. 11, 35, xvi. 1.) 

(6). He is the first of the regular succession of 
prophets. " All the prophets from Samuel and 
those that follow after " (Acts iii. 24). " Ex 
quo sanctus Samuel propheta coepit, et deinceps 
donee populus Israel in Babyloniimr captivus ve- 

heretur, totum est tempus prophefarum " 

(Aug. Cio. Dei, xvii. 1). Moses, Miriam, and 
Deborah, perhaps Ehud, had been prophets. But 
it was only from Samuel that the continuous suc- 
cession was unbroken. This may have been merely 
from the coincidence of his appearance with the 
beginning of the new oider of things, of which the 
prophetical office was the chief expression. Some 
predisposing causes there may have been in his own 

<■ 1 Sam. XV. The LXX. softens this into Icrtfiafe ; but 
the Vulg. translation, in frusta concidit, " cut up into 
small pieces," seems to be the true meanijig. 

4 C 2 




family and birthplace. His mother, as we have I is said with peculiar emphasis, as if to mark the 

seen, though not expressly so called, was in fact a 
prophetess ; the word Zophim, as the affix of Pui- 
mathaim, has been explained, not unreasonably, to 
mean "seers;" and Elkanah, his father, is by the 
Chaldee parajihrast on 1 Sam. i. 1, said to be " a 
disciple of the prophets." But the connexion of 
the continuity of the office with Samuel appears to 
be still more direct. It is in his lifetime, long after 
he had been "established as a prophet" (1 Sam. 
iii. 20), that we hear of the companies of disciples, 
called in the 0. T. " the sons of the prophets," by 
modern writers " the schools of the prophets." All 
the peculiarities of their education are implied or 
expressed — the sacred dance, the sacred music, the 
solemn procession (1 Sam. x. 5, 10; 1 Chr. xxv. 
1, 6). At the head ofthis congretjation, or " church 
as it were within a church" (LXX. t7}V eKKArj- 
aiav, 1 Sam. x. 5, 10), Samuel is expressly described 
as "standing appointed over them" (1 Sam. xix. 20). 
Their chief residence at this time (though after- 
wards, as the institution spread, it struck root in 
other places) was at Samuel's own abode, Ramah, 
where they lived in habitations [Naioth, 1 Sam. 
six. 19, &c.) apparently of a rustic kind, like the 
leafy huts which Elisha's disciples afterwards occu- 
pied by the Jordan (Naioth = " habitations," but 
more specifically used for " pastures "). 

In those schools, and learning to cultivate the pro- 
phetic gifts, were some, whom we know for certain, 
others whom we may almost certainly conjecture, to 
have been so trained or influenced. One was Saul. 
Twice at least he is described as having been in the 
company' of Samuel's disciples, and as having caught 
from them the prophetic fervour, to such a degree as 
to have "prophesied among them" (1 Sam. x. 10, 
1 1), and on one occasion to have thrown off his clothes, 
and to have passed the night in a state of prophetic 
trance (1 Sam. xix. 24): and even in his palace, 
the prophesying mingled with his madness on ordi- 
nary occasions (1 Sam. xviii. 9). Another was 
David. The first acquaintance of Samuel with 
David, was when he privately anointed him at the 
house of Jesse [see David]. But the connexion 
thus begun with the shepherd boy must have been 
continued afterwards. David, at first, fled to 
" Kaioth in Ramah," as to his second home (1 Sam. 
xix. 19^j, and the gifts of music, of song, and of 
prophecy, here developed on so large a scale, were 
exactly such as we find in the notices of those who 
looked up to Samuel as their father. It is, further, 
hardly possible to escape the conclusion that David 
there first met his fast friends and companions in 
after life, prophets like himself — Gad and Nathan. 
It is needless to enlarge on the importance with 
which these incidents invest the appearance of Sa- 
muel. He there becomes the spiritual father of the 
Psalmist king. He is also the Founder of the first 
regular institutions of religious instruction, and com- 
munities for the purposes of education. The schools 
of Greece were not yet in existence. From these 
Jewish institutions were developed, by a natural 
order, the universiti&s of Christendom. And it may 
be further added, that with this view the whole hfe 
of Samuel is in accordance. He is the prophet — 
the only prophet till the time of Isaiah — of whom we 
know that he was so from his earliest years. It is 
this continuity of his own life and cluiracter, that 
makes him so fit an instrument for conducting his 
nation through so gi-eat a change. 

The death of Samuel is dc'cribed as taking place 
in the year of the close of David's wanderings. It 

loss, that " all the Israelites" — all, with a univer- 
sality never specified before — " were gathered to- 
gether" from all parts of this hitherto divided 
country, and " lamented him," and " buried him," 
not in any consecrated place, nor outside the walls 
of his city, but within his own house, thus in a 
manner consecrated by being turned into his tomb 
(1 Sam. XXV. 1). His relics were tianslated " from 
Judaea " (the place is not sisecified) a.D. 406, to 
Constantinople, and received there with much pomp 
by the Emperor Arcadius. Tliey were landed at 
the pier of Chalcedon, and thence conveyed to a 
church, near the palace of Hebdomon (see Acta 
Sanctorum, Aug. 20). 

The situation of Ramathaim, as has been observed, 
is uncertain. But the place long pointed out as his 
tomb is the height, most conspicuous of all in the 
neighbourhood of Jerusalem, immediately above 
the town of Gibeon, known to the Crusaders as 
" Montjoye," as the spot from whence they first 
saw Jerusalem, now called Nehy Saniwil, "the 
Prophet Samuel." The tradition can be traced back 
as far as the 7th century, when it is spoken of as the 
monastery of S. Samuel (Robinson, B. R. ii. 142), 
and if once we discard the connexion of Ramathaim 
with the nameless city where Samuel met Saul, 
'as is set foith at length in the articles Ramah ; 
Rajiathaim-Zophim) there is no reason why the 
tradition should be rejected. A cave is still shown 
underneath the floor of the mosque. " He built the 
tomb in his lifetime," is the account of the Mussul- 
man guardian of the mosque, " but was not buried 
here till after the expulsion of the Greeks." It is 
the onlv spot in Palestine which claims any direct 
connexion with the first great prophet who was 
bora within its limits; and its commanding situa- 
tion well agrees with the importance assigned to 
him in the sacred history. 

His descendants were here till the time of David. 
Heman, his grandson, was or* of the chief singers 
in the Levitical choir (1 Chr. vi. 33, xv. 17, xxv. 5). 
The apparition of Samuel at Endor (1 Sam. xxviii. 
14 ; Ecclus. xlvi. 20) belongs to the history of Saul. 
It has been supposed that Samuel wrote a Life 
of David (of course of his earlier years), which was 
still accessible to one of the authors of the Book of 
Chronicles (I Chr. xxix. 29); but this appears 
doubtful. [Seep. 1126,6.] Vaiious other books of 
the 0. T. have been ascribed to him by the Jewish 
tradition: the Judges, Eutht the two Books of Sa- 
muel, the latter, it is alleged, being written in the 
spirit of prophecy. He is regarded by the Sama- 
ritans as a magician and an infidel (Hottinger, Hist. 
Orient, p. 52). 

The Persian traditions fix his life in the time 
of Kai-i-Kobad, 2nd king of Persia, with whom 
he is said to have conversed (D'Herbelot, Kai 
Kohad). [A. P. S.] 

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF (bx-IOtJ' : Bao-iAei'ujv 
UpwTT], AevTepa: LiherRegwn Primus, Secimdas). 
Two historical books of the Old Testament, which 
are not sepai-ated from each other in the Hebrew 
MSS., and which, from a critiail point of view, 
must be regarded as one book. The present division 
was first made in the Septuagint translation, and 
w;is adopted in the Vulgate from the Septuagint. 
But Origen, as quoted by Eusebius (Histor. Eccles. 
vi. 25),°expressly states that they formed only or.e 
book among the Hebrews. Jerome (Praefatio in 
Libros Samuel et Mdachim) implies the same state- 


rnent ; and in the Talmud (Baba Bathra, fol. 14, 
c. 2), Avherein the authorship is attributed to Samuel, 
they are designated by the name of his book, in the 

singular number (nSD 3n2 "pXIJDtJ*)- ^^^^^' ^^^ 
invention of pi-inting they were published as one 
book in the first edition of the whole Bible printed 
at Soncino in 1488 A.D., and likewise in the Com- 
plutensiau Polyolot printed at Alcala, 1502-1517 
A.D. ; and it was not till the year 1518 that 
the division of the Septuaginl was adopted in He- 
brew, in the edition of the Bible printed by the 
Bombergs at Venice. The book was cjilled by the 
Hebrews " Samuel," probably because the birth and 
life of Samuel were the subjects treated of in the 
beginning of the work— just as a treatise on fes- 
tivals in the Mishna bears the name of Beitsah, an 
egg, because a question connected with the eating 
of an egg is the first subject discussed in it. [Pha- 
RiSEES,°p. 890.] It has been suggested indeed by 
Abarbanel, as quoted by Carpzov (p. 211), that the 
book was called by Siimuel's name because all tilings 
that occur in each book may, in a cerfciin sense, be 
referred to Samuel, including the acts of Saul and 
David, inasmuch as each of them was anointed by 
him, and was, as it were, the work of his hands. 
This, however, seems to be a refinement of explana- 
tion for a fact which is to be accounted for in a less 
artificial manner. And, generally, it is to be ob- 
served that the logical titles of books adopted in 
modern times must not be looked for in Eastern 
works, nor indeed in early works of modern Europe. 
Thus David's Lamentation over Saul and Jonathan 
was called " The Bow," for some reason connected 
with the occurrence of that word in his poem 
(2 Sam. i. 18-22) ; and Snorro Storleson's Chronicle 
of the Kings of Norway obtained the name of 
" Heimski-ingia," the World's Circle, because Heims- 
kringla was the first prominent word of the MS. 
that caught the eye (Laing's Heimsknngla, i. 1). 

Authorship and Date of the Book. — The most 
interesting points in regard to every important his- 
torical work are the name, intelligence, and character 
of the historian, and his means of obtaining coirect 
infoi-mation. If these points should not be known, 
next in order of interest is the precise period of time 
when the work was composed. On all these points, 
however, in reference to the Book of Samuel, more 
questions can be asked than can be answered, and 
the results of a dispassionate inquiry are mainly 

1st, as to the authorship. In common with all 
the historiciil books of the Old Testament, except 
the beginning of Neliemiah, the Book of Samuel 
contains no mention in the text of the name of its 
author. The earliest Greek historic.d work extant, 
written by one who has frequently been called the 
Father of History, commences with the words, 
" This is a publication of the researches of Hero- 
dotus of Halicarnassus;" and the motives which 
induced Herodotus to write the work are then set 
forth. Thucydides, the writer of the Greek his- 
torical work next in order of time, who likewise 
specifies his reasons tor writing it, commences by 
stating, " Thucydides the Athenian wrote the his- 
toiy of the war between the Peloptinnesians and 
Athenians," and frequently uses the formula that 
such or such a yo;U' ended — the second, or third, or 
fourth, as the case might be — " of this war of which, 
Thucydides wrote the history " (ii. 70, lOo ; iii. 25, 
88, 116). Again, when he speaks in one passage 


mention his own name, he refers to himself as 

Thucydides son of Oloras, who composed this 
work" (iv. 104). Now, with the one exception 
of this kind already mentioned, no similar infonna- 
tion is contained in any historical book of the Old 
Testament, although there are passages not only in 
Nehemiah, but likewise in Ezra, written in the first 
person. Still, without any statement of the author- 
ship embodied in the text, it is possible that his- 
toriail books might come down to us with a title 
containing the name of the author. This is the 
case, for example, with Livy's Boman History, and 
Caesar's Commentaries of the Gallic War. In the 
latter case, indeed, although Caesar mentions a long 
series of his own actions without intimating that he 
was the author of the work, and thus there is an 
antecedent improbability that he wrote it, yet tbe 
traditional title of the work outweighs this impro- 
bability, confirmed as the title is by an unbroken 
chain of testimony, commencing with contemporaries 
fCicero, End. 75; Caesar, De Bell. Gall. viii. 1 ; 
Suetonius, Jul. Cues. 56 ; Quinctilian, x. 1 ; 
Tacitus, Germ. 28). Here, again, there is no- 
thing precisely similar in Hebrew history. The 
five books of the Pentateuch have in Hebrew no 
title except the first Hebrew words of each part ; 
and the titles Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, 
and Deuteronomy, which are derived fi-oni the Sep- 
tuagint, convey no information as to their author. 
In like manner, the Book of Judges, the Books of 
the Kings and the Chronicles, are not refeiTed to 
any particular historian ; and although six works 
bear respectively the names of Joshua, Kuth, Samuel, 
Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, there is nothing in the 
works themselves to preclude the idea that in each 
case Jthe subject only of the work may be indicated, 
and not its authorship ; as is shown conclusively by 
the titles Kuth and Esther, which ne one has yet 
coastrued into the assertion that those celebrated 
women wrote the works concerning themselves. 
And it is indisputable that the title "Samuel" 
does not imply that the prophet was the author of 
the Book of Samuel as a whole ; for the death of 
Samuel is recorded in the beginning of the 25th 
chapter ; so that, under any circumstances, a dif- 
ferent author would be required for the remaining 
chapters, constituting considerably more than one- 
half of the entire work. Again, in reference to the 
Book of Samuel, the absence of the historian's name 
from both the text and the title is not supplied by 
any statement of any other writer, made within a 
reasonable period from the time when the book may 
be supposed to have been written. No mention of 
the author's name is made in the Book of Kings, 
noi, as will be hereafter shown, in the Chronicles, 
nor in any other of the sacred writings. In like 
manner, it is not mentioned either in the Apociypha 
or in Josephus. The silence of Josephus is par- 
ticularly significant. He published his Antiquities 
about 1100 years after the death of David, and in 
them he makes constant use of the Book of Samuel 
for one portion of his history. Indeed it is his 
exclusive authority ibr his account of Samuel and 
Saul, and his main authority, in conjunction with 
the Chronicles, for the history of David. Yet he 
nowhere attempts to name the author of the Book 
of Samuel, or of any part of it. There is a similar 
silence in the Mishna,' where, however, the inference 
from such silence is far less cogent. And it ;s not 
until we come to the Babylonian Gemara, which is 
supposed to have been completed in its present form 

of events in which it is necessaiy that he should I somewhere about 500 A.D., that any Jewish state 


ment respecting the authorship can be pointed out, 
and then it is for the first time asserted (Bahn 
Bathra, fol. 14-, c. 2), in a passage already refened 
to, that " Samuel wiote his book," i. e. as the words 
imply, the book which bears his name. But this 
statement ainnot be proved to have been made 
earlier than 1550 years after the death of Samuel — 
a longer peiiod than has elapsed since the death of 
the Emperor Constantine ; and unsuppoi ted as the 
statement is by refeience to any authority of any 
kind, it would be unwoithy of credit, even if it 
were not opposed to the internal evidence of the 
book itself. At the revival of learning, an opinion 
was propounded by Abarbai:el, a Icained Jew, 
t A.D. 1508, that the Book of Samuel was written 
by the prophet Jeremiah ^ (Lat. by Arg. Fteifter, 
Leipzig, 168(3), and this opinion was adopted by Hugo 
Grotius (Pref. ad Lihnim priorem Sanwelis), with 
a geneial statement that there was no discrepancy in 
the language, and with only one special reference. 
Xotwithstauding the eminence, however, of these 
writers, this opinion must be i ejected as highly im- 
probable. Under any circumstances it could not be 
regarded as more than a mere guess ; and it is, in 
reality, a guess uncountenanced by peculiar simi- 
larity of language, or of style, between the history 
of Samuel and the writings of Jeremiah. In our 
own time the most prevalent idea in the Anglican 
Church seems to have been that the first twenty-four 
chapters of the Book of Samuel were written by the 
prophet himself, and the rest of the chapters by 
the prophets Nathan and Gad. This is the view 
favoured by Mr. Home {Introduction to the Holy 
Scriptures, ed. 1846, p. 45), in a work which has 
had very extensive circulation, and which amongst 
many i-eaders has been the only work of the kind 
■ consulted in England. If, however, the authority 
adduced by him is examined, it is found to be ulti- 
mately the opinion " of the Talmudists, which was 
adopted by the most learned Fathers of the Christian 
Church, who unquestionably had better means of 
ascertaining this point than we have." Now the 
absence of any evidence for this opinion in the 
Talmud has been already indicated, and it is diffi- 
cult to understand how the opinion could have been 
stamped with real value through its adoption by 
learned Jews called Talmudists, or by learned 
Christians called Fathers of the Christian Church, 
who lived subsequently to the publication of the 
Talmud. For there is not the slightest reason for 
supposing that in the year 500 a.d. either Jews or 
Christians had access to trustworthy documents on 
this subject which have not been transmitted to 
modern times, and without such documents it can- 
not be shown that they had any better means of 
ascertiiining this jx)int than we have. Two circum- 
stances have probably contributed to the adoption 
of this opinion at the present day : — 1st, the growth 
of stricter ideas as to the importance of knowing 
who was the author of any historical work which 
advances claims to be trustworthy ; and I'ndly, the 
mistranslation of an ambiguous passage in the First 
Cook of Chronicles (.\xix. 29), respecting the autho- 

» Professor Hitz.ig, In like manner, attributes some of 
the Psalms to .Jeremiah. In support of this view, he 
points out, 1st, several special instances of striking simi- 
larity of language between those Psalms and the writings 
of Jeremiah, and, 2ndly, agreement between historical facts 
in the life of Jeremiah and the situation in which the writer 
of those Psalms depicts himself as having been placed 
(Hitzig, Dk I'saVnai, pp. 48-H5). Whether the conclu- 
Biori is correct or incorrect, this is a legitimate mode of 


rities for the life of David. The first point requires 
no comment. On the second point it is to be ob- 
seri'ed that the following appears to be the correct 
translation of the passage in question : — " Now the 
history of David first and last, behold it is written 
in the history of Samuel the seer, and in the history 
of Nathan the prophet, and in the history of Gad 
the seer" — in which the Hebrew word dibrei, here 
translated " histoiy," has the same meaning given 
to it each of the four times that it is used. This 
agrees with the translation in the Septuagint, which 
is particularly worthy of attention in reference to 
the Chronicles, as the Chronicles are the very last 
work in the Hebrew Bible ; and whether this arose 
from their having been the last admitted into the 
Canon, or the last composed, it is scarcely probable 
that any. translation in the Septuagint, with one 
gi'cat exception, was made so soon after the com- 
position of the original. The rendering of the 
Septuagint is by the word \6yoi, in the sense, so 
well known in Herodotus, of "history" (i. 184, 
ii. 161, vi. 1.37), and in the like sense in the Apo- 
crypha, wherein it is used to describe the history of 
Tobit, ^i$Xos \6ywy Ta)/3iT. The word " history " 
(Geschichte) is likewise the word four times used in 
the translation of this passage of the Chronicles in 
Luther's Bible, and in the modern version of the 
German Jews made under the superintendence of 
the learned Dr. Zunz (Berlin, 1858). In the 
English Version, however, the word dibrei is trans- 
lated in the first instance " acts " as applied to 
David, and then " book " as applied to Samuel, 
Nathan, and Gad ; and thus, through the ambiguity 
of the word " book," the possibility is suggested 
that each of these three prophets wrote a book 
respecting his own life and times. This double 
rendering of the same word in one passage seems 
wholly inadmissible ; as is also, though in a less 
degree, the translation of dibrei as " book," for 
which there is a distinct Hebrew word — sepher. 
And it may be deemed morally certain that this 
passage of the Chronicles is no authority for the 
supposition that, when it was written, any work 
was in existence of which either Gad, Kathan, or 
Samuel was the author.'' 

2. Although the authorship of the Book of Samuel 
cannot be asceitained, there are some indications as 
to the date of the work. And yet even on this 
point no precision is attainable, and we must be 
satisfied with a conjecture as to the range, not of 
years or decades, but of centuries, within which the 
history was probably composed. l]vidence on this 
head is either external or internal. The earliest 
undeniable external evidence of the existence of the 
book would seem to be the Greek translation of it 
in the Septuagint. The e.xact date, however, of the 
translation itself is uncertain, though it must have 
been made at some time between the translation of 
the Pentateuch in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, 
who died B.C. 247, and the century belbie the birth 
of Christ. The next best external testimony is that 
of a passage in the Second Book of Maccabees (ii. 
13), in which it is said of Nehemiah, that " he, 

reasoning, and there is a sound basis for a critical super- 
structure. See Pjalms xxxi., xxxv., xl. 

!> In the Swedish Bible the word dibrei In each of the 
four insuuices is translated " acts" {Gemingar), being pre- 
cisely the same word which is used to designate the Acta 
of the Apostles in the New Testament. This translation 
Is self-consisttnt and admissible. But the German 
translations, supported as they are by the Septuagint, 
seem preferable. 


founding a libiai-y, gathered together the acts of 
the kings, and the prophets, and of David, and the 
epistles of the kings concerning the holy gifts." 
!No\v, although this passage ('4)nnot be relied on for 
proving that Neheniiah himself did in fact ever 
found such a library,' yet it is good evidence to 
prove that the Acts of the Kings, to, irepl tZv 
^aaiXiuiv, were in existence when the ]>a.ssage was 
written ; and it cannot reasonably be doubted that 
this phrase was intended to include the Book of 
Samuel, which is equivalent to the two first Books 
of Kings in the Septuagint., Hence there is external 
evidence that the Book of Samuel was written 
before the Second Book of Maccabees. And lastly, 
the passage in the Chronicles already quoted (1 Chr. 
xxix. 29) seems likewise to prove externally that 
the Book of Samuel was written befoie the Chro- 
nicles. This is not absolutely certain, but it seems 
to be the most natural inference from the words 
that the historv of David, first and last, is con- 
tained in the liistory of Samuel, the history of 
Nathan, and the history of Gad. For as a work 
has come down to us, entitled Samuel, which con- 
tains an account of the life of David till within a 
.short period before his death, it appears most rea- 
sonable to conclude (although this point is open to 
disjnite) that the writer of the Chronicles referred 
to this work by the title History of Samuel. In 
this case, admitting the date assigned, on internal 
grounds, to the Chronicles by a modern Jewish 
writer of undoubted learning and critical powers, 
there would be external evidence for the existence 
of the Book of Samuel earlier than 247 B.C., though 
not earlier than 312 B.C., the era of tlie Seleucidae 
(Zunz, Die Gottesdienstlichen Vortrdge der Jitden, 
p. 32). Supposing that the Chronicles were written 
earlier, this evidence would go, in ])recise proportion, 
farther back, but there would be still a total absence 
of earlier external evidence on the subject than is 
contained in the Chronicles. If, however, instead 
of lookmg solely to the external evidence, the in- 
ternal evidence respecting the Book of Samuel is 
examined, there are indications of its having been 
written some centuries earlier. On this head the 
tbllowiiig points are worthy of notice: — 

1 . The Book of Samuel seems to have been writ- 
ten at a time when the Pentateuch, whether it was 
or was not in existence in its present form, was at 
any rate not acted on as the rule of religious ob- 
servances. According to the Mosaic Law as finally 
established, sacrifices to Jehovah were not lawful 
' anywhere but before the door of the tabernacle 
of the congregation, whether this was a permanent 
temple, as at Jerusalem, or otherwise (Deut. xii. 
13, 14; Lev. xvii. 3, 4; but see Ex. xx. 24). But 
in the Book of S.amuel, the offering of sacrifices, or 
the erection of altars, which implies sacrifices, is 
mentioned at several places, such as Mizpeh, Ramah, 
Bethel, the threshing- place of Araunah the Jebusite, 
and elsewhere, not only without any disappiobation, 
apology, or explanation, but in a way which pro- 
duces the impression that such sacrifices were 
pleasing to Jehovah (1 Sam. vii. 9, 10, 17, ix. 13, 
X. 3, xiv. 35 ; 2 Sam. xxiv. 18-25). This circum- 


stance points to the date of the Book of Samuel as 
earlier ilian the reformation of Josiah, when Hil- 
kiah the high-priest told Shaphan the scribe that 
he had found the r)Ook of the Law in the house of 
Jehovah, when the Passover was kept as was en- 
joined in that book, in a way that no Passover had 
been holden since the days of the Judges, and when 
the worship upon high-places was aljolished by the 
king's orders (2 K. xxii. 8, xxiii. 8, 13, 15, 19', 21, 
22 ). The probability that a sacred historian, writing 
after that reformation, would have expressed dis- 
approbation of, or would have accounted for, any 
seeming departure from the laws of the Pentateuch 
by David, Saul, or Samuel, is not in itself conclu- 
sive, but joined to other considerations it is entitled 
to peculiar weight. The natural mode of dealing with 
such a religious scandal, when it shocks the ideas 
of a later generation, is followed by the author of the 
Book of Kings, who undoubtedly lived later than 
the reformation of Josiah, or than the beginning,' at 
lea~.t, of the captivity of Judah (2 K. xxv. 21, 27 j. 
This writer mentions the toleration of worship on 
high-places with disapprobation, not only in con- 
nexion with bad kings, such as Manasseh and Ahaz, 
but hkewise as a drawback in the excellence of 
other kings, such as Asa, Jehoshaphat, Johoash, 
Amaziah, Azariah, and Jotham, who are praised for 
having done what was right in the sight of Jehovah 
(1 K. XV. 14, xxii. 43 ; 2 K. xii. 3, xiv. 4, xv. 4, 
35, xvi. 4, xxi. 3) ; and something of the same kind 
might have been expected in the writer of the Book 
of Samuel, if he had lived at a time when the wor- 
ship on high-places had been abolished. 

2. It is in accordance with this early date of the 
Book of Samuel that allusions in it even to the 
existence of Moses are so few. 'After the return 
from the Captivity, and more especially after the 
changes introduced by Ezra, Moses became that 
great central figure in the thoughts and language 
of devout Jews which he could not fail to be when 
all the laws of the Pentateuch were observed, and 
they were all leferred to him as the divine prophet 
who cominunicated them directly from Jehovah. 
This transcendent importance of Moses must already 
have commenced at the finding of the Book of the 
Law at the leformation of Josiali. Now it is re- 
markable that the Book of Samuel is the historical 
work of the Old Testament in which the name of 
Moses occurs most rarely. In Joshua it occurs 56 
times ; in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah 31 times ; 
in the Book of Kings ten times; in Judges three 
times; but in Samuel only twice (Zunz, Vortrdge, 
35). And it is worthy of note that in each case 
Moses is merely mentioned with Aaron as having 
brought the Israelites out of the land of Egypt, but 
nothing whatever is said of the Latu of Moses 
(1 Sam. xii. 6, 8). It may be thought that no 
infpi'ence can be drawn from this omission of the 
name of Moses, because, inasmuch as the Law of 
Moses, as a whole, was evidently not acted on in 
the time of Saniuel, David, and Solomon, there was 
no occasion for a writer, however late he lived, to 
inti-cduce the name of !Moses at all in connexion 
with their life and actions. But it is very rare 

= Professors Ewald and Bleek have accepted tbe state- 
ment that Nehemiah founded such a library, and they 
make inferences from the account of the library as to the 
time when certain books of the Old Testament were ad- 
mitted into the Canon. There are, however, the following 
1 easons for rejecting the statement: — 1st. It occurs in a 
letter generally deemed spurious. 2iidly. In the same 
letter a fabulous story is recorded not only of Jeremiah 

(ii. 1-7), but likewise of Nehemiah himself. Srdly. An 
erroneous historical statement is likewise made in the 
same letter, that Nehemiah built the Temple of Jerusalem 
(i. 18). No witness in a court of justice, whose credit had 
been shaken to a similar extent, would, unless corroborated 
by other evidence be relied on as an authority for any 
important fact. 


indeed for later writei-s to refrain in this way from 
importing the ideas of tlieir own time into the ac- 
count of earlier transactions. Thus, very early iu 
the Book of Kings there is an allusion to what is 
" written in the Law of Moses" (1 K. ii. 3). Thus 
the author of the Book of Chronicles makes, for the 
reign of David, a ciilculation of money in darics, 
a Persian coin, not likely to have been in common 
use among the Jews until the Persian domination 
had been fully established. Thus, more than once, 
Josephus, in his Antiquities of the Jews, attributes 
expressions to personages in the Old Testament 
which are to be accounted for by what was familiar 
to his own mind, although they are not justified 
by his authorities. For example, evidently copying 
the history of a transaction from the Book of 
Samuel, he represents the prophet Samuel as ex- 
horting the people to bear in mind " the code of 
laws which Moses had given them " (ttjs Mcoiicre'cos 
vifuoOea-ias, Ant. vi. 5, §3), though there is no 
mention of Moses, or of his legislation, in the 
corresponding passage of Samuel (1 Sam. xii. 20- 
25). Again, in giving an account of the punish- 
ments with which the Israelites were threatened for 
disobedience of the Law by Moses in the Book of 
Deuteronomy, Josephus attributes to JMoses the 
thretit that their temple should be burned {Ant. iv. 
8, §46). But no passage can be pointed out in the 
whole Pentateuch in which such a threat occurs ; 
and in fact, according to the received chronology 
(1 K. vi. 1), or according to any chronology, the 
first temple at Jerusalem was not built till some 
centuries after the death of Moses. Yet this allu- 
sion to the burning of an unbuilt temple ought not 
to be regarded as an intentional misrepresentation. 
It is rather an instance of the tendency in an histo- 
rian who describes past events to give unconsciously 
indications of his living himself at a later epoch. 
Similar remarks apply to a passage of Josephus (^Ant. 
vii. 4, §4), in which, giving an account of David's 
project to build a temple at Jerusalem, he says that 
David wished to prepare a temple for God, " as 
Moses commanded," though no such command or 
injunction is to be found in the Pentateuch. To a 
religious Jew, when the laws of the Pentateuch were 
observed, Moses could not fail to be the predominant 
idea in his mind ; but Closes would not necessarily 
be of equal importance to a Hebrew historian who 
lived before the i-eformation of Josiah. 

3. It tallies with an e;irly date for the compo- 
sition of the Book of Samuel that it is one of the 
best speciraeas of Hebrew prose in the golden age 
of Hebrew literature. In prose it holds the same 
place which Joel and the undisputed prophecies of 
Isaiah hold in poetical or prophetical language. It 
is free from the peculiarities of the Book of Judges, 
which it is proposed to account for by supposing 
that they belonged to the popular dialect of Northern 
Palestine ; and likewise from the slight peculiarities 
of the Pentateuch, which it is proposed to regard 
as arcliaisms'' (Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar, §2, 5). 
It is a striking contrast to the language of the Book 
of Chronicles, which undoubtedly belongs to the 
silver age of Hebrew prose, and it does not contain 
jis many alleged Chaldaisms as the few in the Book 
of Kings. Indeed the number of Chaldaisms in the 
Book of Samuel which the most rigid scrutiny has 
suggested do not amount to more than about rix 
instances, some of them doubtful ones, in 90 pages 

<i As •compared with Samuel, the peculiarities of the 
Pentateuch are not quite as strikiriK as the (liffcrences in 
language between Lucretius and Virgil: the parallel which 


of our modern Hebrew Bible. And, considering the 
ijeneral purity of the language, it is not only 
possible, but probable, that the trifling residuum of 
Chaldaisms may be owing to the inadvertence of 
Chaldee copyists, when Hebrew had ceased to be a 
living language. At the same time this argument 
from language must not be pushed so fiir as to 
imply that, standing alone, it would be conclusive ; 
for some writings, the date of which is about the 
time of the Captivity, are in pure Hebrew, such 
as the proj)hecies of Habakkuk, the Psalms cxx., 
cxxxvii., cxxxix., pointed out by Gesenius, and by 
fiir the largest portion of the latter part of the pro- 
phecies attributed to " Isaiah " (xl.-lxvi.). And we 
have not sufficient knowledge of the condition of 
the Jews at the time of the Captivity, oi- for a few 
centuries after, to entitle any one to assert that 
there were no individuals among them who wrote 
the purest Hebrew. Still the balance of ])robability 
inclines to the contrary direction, and, as a sub- 
sidiary argument, the purity of language of the 
Book uf Samuel is entitled to some weight. 

Assuming, then, that the work was composed at 
a period not later than the reformation of Josiah — 
say, B.C. 622 — the question arises as to the very 
earliest point of time at which it could have existed 
in its present form ? And the answer seems to be, 
that the earliest period was subsequent to the seces- 
sion of the Ten Tribes. This results from the passage 
in 1 Sam. xxvii. 6, wherein it is said of David, 
" Then Achish gave him Ziklag that day: wherefore 
Ziklag pertaineth unto the kings of Judah to this 
day :" for neither Saul, David, nor Solomon is in a 
single instance called king of Judah simply. It is true 
that David is said, in one narrative respecting him, to 
have reigned in Hebron seven years and six months 
over Judah (2 Sam. v. 5) before he reigned in Jeru- 
salem thirty-three years over all Israel and Judah ; 
but he is, notwithstanding, never designated by 
the title King of Judah. Before the secession^ 
the designation of the kings was that they were 
kings of Israel (1 Sam. xiii. 1, xv. 1, xvi. 1 ; 2 Sam. 
V. 17, viii. 15; 1 K. ii. 11, iv. 1, vi. 1, xi. 42). It 
may safely, therefore, be assumed that the Book of 
Samuel could not have existed in its present form 
at an earlier period than the reign of Rehoboam, 
who ascended the throne B.C. 975. If we go be- 
yond this, and endeavour to assert the precise time 
between 975 B.C. and 622 B.C., when it was com- 
posed, all certain indications fail us. The expres- 
sion " unto this day," used several times in the 
book (1 Sam. v. 5, vi. 18, xxx. 25; 2 Sam. iv. 3, 
vi. 8), in addition to the use of it in the passage 
already quoted, is too indefinite to prove anything, 
except that the writer who employed it lived sub- 
sequently to the events he described. It is in- 
adequate to prove whether he lived three centui'ies, 
or only half a century, after those events. The 
same remark applies to the phrase, " Therefore it 
became a proverb, ' Is Saul among the Prophets?' " 
(1 Sam. X. 12), and to the verse, " Beforetime iu 
Israel, when a man went to enquii-e of God, thus 
he spake. Come, and let us go to the seer : for he 
that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called 
a Seer" (1 Sam. ix. 9). In both cases it is not 
certain that the writer lived more than eighty years 
afler the incidents to which he alludes. In like 
manner, the various traditions respecting the manner 
in which Saul first became acquainted with David 

has been suggested by Gesenius. Virgil seems to have 
been abimt 14 years of age when Lucretius's great poem 
w;vs published. 


(1 Sam. xvi. 14-23, xvii. 55-58) — respecting the 
maimer of Saul's death (1 Sam. xxxi. 2-6, 8-13 ; 
2 Sam. i. 2-12) — do uot necessarily show that a 
very long time (say even a century) elapsed between 
the actual events and the record of the traditions. 
In an age anterior to the existence of newspapers or 
tlie invention of printing, and when probably few 
could read, thii'ty or forty ye;irs, or even less, have 
been sufficient lor the growth of dilferent traditions 
respecting the same historical fact. Lastly, internal 
evidence of language lends no assistance for discri- 
mination in the period of 353 years within which 
the bodiv may have been written ; for the undis- 
puted Hebrew writings belonging to that period 
are comparatively few, and not one of them is a 
history, which would present the best points of 
comparison. They embrace scarcely more than the 
writmgs of Joel, Amos, Hosea, Micah, Nahum, 
and a certain portion of the writings under the 
title " Isaiah." The whole of these writings to- 
gether can scarcely be estimated as occupying more 
than sixty pages of our Hebrew Bibles, and what- 
ever may be their peculiarities of language or style, 
they do not afford materials for a safe inference as 
to which of their authors was likely to have been 
contemporary with the author of the Book of Sa- 
muel. All that can be asserted as undeniable is, 
that the book, as a whole, can scarcely have been 
composed later than the reformation of Josiah, and 
that it could not have existed in its pi"esent form 
earlier than the reign of Rehoboam. 

It is to be added that no great weight, in opposition 
to this conclusion, is due to the fact that the death 
of David, although in one passage evidently implied 
(2 Sam. V. 5), is not directly recorded in the Book 
of Samuel. From this fact Havernick {Einleitung 
in das Alte Testament, part ii., p. 145) deems it 
a certain inference that the author ^lived not long 
after the death of David. But this is a very slight 
foundation for such an inference, since we know 
nothing of the author's name, or of the circum- 
stances under which he wrote, or of his precise 
ideas respecting what is required of an historian. 
We cannot, therefore, assert, from the knowledge of 
the character of his mind, that his deeming it logi- 
cally requisite to make a formal statement of David's 
death would have depended on his living a short 
time 01 a long time after that event. Besides, it is 
very possible that he did formally record it, and 
that the mention of it was subsequently omitted on 
account of the more minute details by which the 
account of David's death is preceded in the First 
Book of Kings. There would have been nothing 
wrong in,such an omission, nor indeed, in any addi- 
tion to the Book of Samuel ; for, as those who 
finally inserted it in the Canon did not transmit it 
to posterity with the name of any particular author, 
their honesty was involved, not in the mere circum- 
stiuice of their omitting or adding anything, but 
solely in the fact of their adding nothing which they 
believed to be false, and of omitting nothing, of im- 
portance which they believed to be true. 

In this absolute ignorance of the author's name, 
and vague knowledge of the date of the work, 
there has been a controverey whether the Book of 
Samuel is or is not a compilation from pre-existing 
documents ; and if this is decided in the affirmative, 
to what extent the work is a compilation. It is 
not intended to enter fully here into this contro- 
versy, respecting which the reader is referred to Dr. 
Davidson's IntrodtKtion to the Critical Study and 
Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, London, Long- 
man, 185(3, in which this subject is dispassionately 


and fairly treated. One observation, however, of 
some practical importance, is to be borne in mind. 
It does not admit of much reasonable doubt that in 
the Book of Samuel there are two different accounts 
(already alluded to) resjiecting Saul's first acquaint- 
ance with David, and the circumstaucee of Saul's 
death — and that yet the editor or author of the 
Book did not let his mind work upon these two 
different accounts so far as to make him interpose 
his own opinion as to which of the conflicting 
accounts was coiTect, or even to point out to the 
reader that the two accounts were appaiently con- 
tradictory. Hence, in a certain sense, and to a 
certain extent, the author must be regarded as a 
compiler, and not an original historian. And in 
reference to the two accounts of Saul's death, this 
is not the less true, even if the second account be 
deemed reconcileable with the first by the supposi- 
tion that the Amalekite had fabricated the story of 
his having killed Saul (2 Sam. i. 6-10). Although 
possibly true, this is an unlikely supposition, be- 
cause, as the Amalekite's object in a lie would have 
been to cun-y favour with David, it would have 
been natural for him 'to have forged some story 
which would have redounded more to his own credit 
than the clumsy and improbable statement that he, 
a mere casual spectator, had killed Saul at Saul's 
own request. But whether the Amalekite said 
what was true or what was false, an historian, as 
distinguished from a compiler, could scarcely have 
failed to convey his own opinion on the point, 
affecting, as on one alternative it did materially, 
the truth of the narrative which he hail just before 
recorded respecting the circumstances under which 
Saul's death occun'ed. And if compilation is ad- 
mitted in regard to the two events just mentioned, 
or to one of them, t()ere is no antecedent improba- 
bility that the same may have been the case in 
other instances ; such, for example, as the two expla- 
nations of the proverb, " Is Saul also among the 
Prophets?" (1 Sam. x. 9-12, xix. 22-24), or the 
two accounts of David's having forborne to take 
Saul's life, at the very time when he was a fugitive 
from Saul, and his own life was in danger from 
Saul's enmity (1 Sam. xxiv. 3-15, xxvi. 7-12). 
The same remark applies to what seem to be sum- 
maries or endings of narratives by different writeis, 
such as 1 Sam. vii. 15-17, 1 Sam.xiv. 47-52, com- 
pared with chapter xv. ; 2 Sam. viii. 15-18. In 
these cases, if each passage were absolutely isolated, 
and occurred in a work which contained no other 
instance of compilation, the inference to be drawn 
might be uncertain. But when even one instance 
of compilation has been clearly established in a 
work, all other seeming instances must be viewed 
in its light, and it would be unreasonable to contest 
each of them singly, on principles which imply that 
compilation is as unlikely as it would be in a work 
of modern history. It is to be added, that as the 
author and the precise date of the Book of Samuel 
are unknown, its historical value is not impaired 
by its being deemed to a certain extent a compila- 
tion. Indeed, from one point of view, its value is 
in this way somewhat enhanced ; as the probability 
is increased of its containing documents of an early 
date, some of which may have been written by 
persons contemporaneous, or nearly so, with the 
events described. 

Sources of the Book of Samuel. — Assuming that 
the book is a compilation, it is a subject of ration:d 
incjuiry to ascertain the materials from which it 
was composed. But our information on this head 
is scanty. The only work actually quoteil in this 



book is the Book of Jasher ; i. e. the Book of tlie 
Upright. Notwithstanding the great leiirning which 
has been brouglit to bear' on this title by numerous 
commentators [vol. i. p. 932], the meaning of the 
title must be recjarded as absolutely unknown, and 
the character of the boojc itself as uncertain. The 
best conjecture hitherto oflered as an induction fiom 
facts is, that it was a Book of Poems ; but the tacts 
are too few to esbiblish this as a positive general 
conclusion. It is only quoted twice in the whole 
Bible, once as a work containing David's Lamenta- 
tion over Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. i. 18), and 
secondly, as an authority for the statement that 
the sun and moon stood still at the command of 
Joshua (Josh. x. 13). There can be no doubt that 
the Lamentation of David is a poem ; and it is most 
probable that the other passage referred to as written 
in the Book of Jasher includes four lines of Hebrew 
poetry ,« though the poetical diction and rhythm of 
the original are somewhat impaired in a translation. 
But the only sound deduction from these facts is, that 
the Book of Jasher contained some poems. What else 
it may have contained we cannot say , even negatively. 
Without reference, however, to the Book of Jasher, 
the Book of Samuel contains several poetical com- 
positions, on each of which a few observations may 
be oflered ; commencing with the poetry of David. 
(1.) David's Lamentation over Saul and Jonathan, 
called " The Bow." This e-xtremely beautiful com- 
position, which seems to have been preserved through 
David's having caused it to be taught to the chil- 
dren of Judah (2 Sam. i. IS), is universally admitted 
to be the genuine production of David. In this 
respect, it has an advantage over the Psalms ; as, 
owing to the unfortunate inaccuracy of some of the 
inscriptions, no one of the Psalms attributed to 
David has wholly escaped challenge. One point in 
the Lamentation especially merits attention, that, 
contrary to what a later poet would have ventured 
to represent, David, in the generosity and tenderness 
of his nature, sounds the praises of Saul. 

(2.) David's Lamentation on the death of Abner 
(2 Sam. iii. 33, 34). There is no reason to doubt 
the genuineness of this short poetical ejaculation. 

(3.) 2 Sam. xxii. A Song of David, which is in- 
troduced with the inscription that David spoke the 
words of the song to Jehovah, in the day that Je- 
hovah had delivered him out of the hand of all his 
enemies and out of the hand of Saul. This song, 
with a few unimportant verbal differences, is merely 
the xviiith Psalm, which bears substantially the 
same insciiption. For poetical beauty, the song is 
well worthy to be the production of David. The 
following dithculties, however, are connected with it. 
(a.) The date of the composition is assigned to 
the day when David had been delivered not only out 
of the hand of all his enemies, but likewise " out of 
the hand of Saul." Now David reigned forty years 
after Saul's death (2 Sam. v. 4, 5), and it was as 
Idng that he achieved the successive conquests to 
which allusion is made in the Psalm. Moreover, 
the Psalm is evidently introduced as composed at a 
late period of his life ; mid it immediately precedes 
the twenty-third chapter, which commences with 
the passage, " Now these be the last words of Da-\'id." 
It sounds strange, therefore, that the name of Saul 


should be introduced, whose hostility, so far distant 
in time, had been condoned, as it were, by David in 
his noble Lamentation. 

(6.) In the closing verse (2 Sam. xxii. 51), Je- 
hovah is spoken of as showing " mercy to His 
anointed, unto David and his seed for evermore." 
These words would be more naturally written of 
David than by David. They may, however, be a 
later addition ; as it may be observed that at the 
present day, notwithstanding the safeguard of print- 
ing, the poetical writings of living authors, are 
occasionally altered, and it must be added disfigured, 
in printed hymn-books. Still, as far as they go, 
the words tend to raise a doubt whether the Psalm 
was written by David, as it cannot be proved that 
they are an addition. 

(c.) In some passages of the Psalm, the strongest 
assertions are made of the poet's uprightness and 
purity. He says of himself, " According to the 
cleanness of my hands hath He recompensed me. 
For I have kept the ways of Jehovah, and have not 
wickedly departed from my God. For all His judg- 
ments were before me: and as for His statutes, I 
did not depart from them. I was also upright before 
Him, and have kept myself from mine iniquity" 
(xxii. 21-24). Now it is a subject of reasonable 
surprise that, at any period after the painful incidents 
of his life in the matter of LTriah, David should 
have used this language concerning himself. Ad- 
mitting fully that, in consequence of his sincere 
and bitter contrition, "the princely heart of inno- 
cence" may have been freely bestowed upon him, 
it is difficult to undersfcmd how this should have 
influenced him so far in his assertions respecting 
his own uprightness in past times, as to make him 
forget that he had once been betrayed by his passions 
into .adultery and muider. These assertions, if 
made by David himself, would term a striking con- 
trast to the tender humility and self-mistrust in 
connexion with the same subject by a great living 
genius of spotless character. (See ' Christian Year,' 
6th Sunday after Trinity — ad fnem.) 

(4.) A song, called " last words of David," 2 
Sam. xxiii. 2-7. According to the Inscription, it 
was composed by " David the son of Jesse, the man 
who was raised u]i on high, the anointed of the 
God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel." 
Jt is suggested by Bleek, and is in itself very pro- 
bable, that both the Psalm and the Inscription were 
taken from some collection of Songs or Psalms. 
There is not sufficient reason to deny that this song 
is correctly ascribed to David. 

(5.) One other song remains, which is perliaps 
the most perplexing in the Book of Samuel. This 
is the Song of Hannah, a wife of Elkanah (1 Sam. 
ii. 1-10). One difficulty arises from an allusion in 
verse 10 to the existence of a king under Jehovah, 
many years before the kingly power was established 
among the Israelites. Another equally great diffi- 
culty arises fi-om the intei-nal character of the song. 
It purports to be written by one of two wives as a 
song of thanksgiving for having borne a child, after 
a long period of barrenness, which had caused her 
to be looked down upon by the other wife of her 
husband. But, deducting a general allusion, in 
verse 5, to the ban-en having borne seven, there is 

^ Any Hebrew scholiir who will write out the original 
four lines commencing with " Sun, stand tliou still upon 
Gibeon !" may satisfy himself that they belong to a poem. 
The last line, "Until the people had avenged themselves 
upon their enemies," which in the A. V. is somewhat 
heavy, is almost unmistakeably a line of poetiy in the 
original. In a narrative respecting the Isracliles in prose 

they would not liave been described as ^"jjl (yoi), without 
even an article. Moreover, there is no other instance in 
which the simple accusative of the person ou whom ven- 
geance is talten is used after QpJ (nakam). In simple 
prose JQ (min) intervenes, and, like the article, it may 
have been here omitted for conciseness. 


nothing in the song peculiarly applicable to the 
supposed circumstiuices, and by far the greater 
portion of it seems to be a song ot triuni])h ibr deli- 
verance from powerful enemies in battle (vers. 1, 
4, 10). Indeed, Thenius does not hesitate to con- 
jecture that it was written by David after he had 
slain Goliath, and the Philistines had been defeated 
in a great battle (Uxegetisches Handbuch, p. 8). 
There is no historical warrant for this supposition ; 
but the song is certainly more appropriate to the 
victory of David over Goliath, than to Hannah's 
having given birth to a child under the circum- 
stances detailed in the first chapter of Samuel. It 
would, however, be equally appropriate to some 
other great battles of the Israelites. 

In advancing a single step beyond the songs of 
the Book of Samuel, we enter into the region of 
conjecture as to the materials which were at the 
command of the author; and in points which arise 
for consideration, we must be satisfied with a sus- 
pense of judgment, or a slight balance of probabi- 
lities. For example, it being plain that in some 
instances there are two accounts of the same trans- 
action, it is desirable to form an opinion whether 
these were founded on distinct written documents, 
or on distinct oral traditions. This point is open 
to dispute ; but the theory of written documents 
seems preferable ; ;rs in the alternati^•e of mere 
oral traditions it would have been supereminently 
unnatural even for a compilei' to record them 
without stating in his own person that there were 
different traditions respecfing the same event. 
Again, the truthful simplicity and extraordinary 
vividness of some portions of the Book of Samuel 
naturally suggest the idea that they were founded 
on contempoiary documents or a peculiarly trust- 
worthy tradition. This applies specially to the 
account of the combat between David and Goliath, 
which has been the delight of successive genera- 
tions, which charms equally in different ways the 
old and the young, the learned and the illiterate, 
and which tempts us to deem it certain that the 
account must have proceeded from an eye-witness. 
On the other hand, it is to be remembered that 
vividness of description often depends more on the 
discerning faculties of the nanator than on mere 
bodily presence. " It is the mind that sees," so 
that 200 years after the meeting of the Par- 
liament a powerful imaginative writer shall pour- 
tray Cromwell more vividly than Ludlow, a con- 
temporary who knew him and conversed with him. 
j\Ioreover, Livy has described e\'ents of early Pioman 
History which educated men regard in their details 
as imaginary; and Defoe, Swift, and the authors of 
Tlie Arabian Niij/its have described events which all 
men admit to be imaginary, with such seemingly 
authentic details, with such a chaim of reality, 
movement, and spirit, that it is sometimes only by 
a strong effort of reason that we escape from the 
illusion that the nanatives are true. In the absence, 
therefore, of any e.xternal evidence on this point, it is 
safer to suspend our judgn:ient as to whether any per- I 
tion of the Book of Samuel is founded on the writing ' 
of a contemporary, or on a tradition entitled to any 
peculiar credit. Perhaps the two conjectures re- 
specting the composition of the Book of Samuel i 
which are most entitled to consideration are — 1st. j 
That the list which it contains of officers or public i 
function;u-ies under David is the result of contem- 
porary registration ; and 2ndly. That the Book , 

f It is worthy of note that the prophet Ezekiel never tliere is no mention of the Levltes in the undisputed 
uses tlie expression " Lord of Hosts." On the other hand, writings of Isaiab. 


of Samuel was the compilation of some one con- 
nected with the schools of the prophets, or pene- 
trated by their spirit. On the first point, the 
reader is referred to such passages as 2 Sam. viii. 
lG-18, ami .\x. 23-26, in regard to which one fact 
may be mentioned. It has already been stated 
[King, p. 42] that under the Kings there existe<l 
an officer called Recorder, Remembrancer, or Chro- 
nicler ; in Hebrew, maz/dr. Now it can scarcely 
be a mere accidental coincidence that such an officer 
is mentioned for the first time in David's reign, 
and that it is precisely for David's reign that a list 
of public functionaries is for the first time tians- 
mitted to us. On the second point, it cannot but be 
obseived what prominence is given to pro]]hets in 
the history, as compared with priests and Levites. 
This prominence is so decided, that it undoubtedly 
contributed towards the formation of the uncritical 
opinion that the Book of Samuel way the produc- 
tion of the prophets Samuel, Nathan, and Gad. 
This opinion is unsupported by external evidence, 
and is contrary to internal evidence ; but it is by 
no means improbable that some writers among the 
sons of the pVophets recorded the actions of those 
prophets. This would be peculiarly probable in 
reference to Nathan's rebuke of David after the 
murder of Uriah. Nathan here presents the image 
of a prophet in its noblest and most attractive form. 
Boldness, tenderness, inventiveness, and tact, were 
combined in such admirable proportions, that a 
prophet's functions, if always discharged in a similar 
manner with equal discretion, would have been 
acknowledged by all to be purely beneficent. In 
his interposition there is a kind of ideal moral 
beauty. In the schools of the prophets he doubt- 
less held the place which St. Ambrose afterwards 
held in the minds of priests for the exclusion of the 
Emperor Theodosius from the church at Milan after 
the massacre at Thessalonica. It may be added, 
that the following circumstances are in accordance 
with the supposition that the compiler of the Book 
of Samuel was connected with the schools of the 
prophets. The designation of Jehovah as the " Lord 
of Hosts," or God of Hosts, does not occur in the 
Pentateuch, or in Joshua, or in Judges; but it 
occurs in the Book of Samuel thirteen times. In 
the Book of Kjngs it occurs only seven times ; and 
in the Book of Chronicles, as far as this is an ori- 
ginal or uidependent work, it cannot be said to 
occur at all, for although it is found in three 
passages, all of these are evidently copied from the 
Book of Samuel. (See 1 Chr. xi. 9 — in the original, 
precisely the same words as in 2 Sam. v. 10 ; and 
see 1 Chr. xvii. 7, 24-, copied from 2 Sam. vii. 8, 26.) 
Now this phrase, though occurring so rarely else- 
where in prose, that it occurs nearly twice as often 
in the Book of Samuel as in ali the other historical 
writings of the Old Testament put together, is a 
very fiivourite phrase in some of the great pro- 
phetical writings. In Isaiah it occurs sixty-two time.s 
(six times only in the chapters xl.-lxvi.), and in Je- 
remiah sixty-five times at least. -Again, the predo- 
minance of the idea of the prophetical office in 
Samuel is shown by the very subordinate place 
assigned in it to the Levites. The difference between 
the Chronicles and the Book of Samuel in this 
respect is even more striking than their difierence 
in the use of the expression "Lord of Hosts;"' 
though in a reverse proportion. In the whole Book 
of Samuel the Levites are mentioned only twice 


(1 Sam. vi. 15; 2 Sam. xv. 24), while in Chro- 
nicles they are mentioned above thirty times in the 
First Boole alone, which contains the history of 
David's reign. 

In conclusion, it may be observed that it is very 
instructive to direct the attention to the passages in 
Samuel and the Chronicles which treat of the same 
events, and, generallv, to the manner in which the 
life of David is treated in the two histories. A 
comparison of the two works tends to throw light 
on the state of the Hebrew mind at the time when 
the Book of Samuel was written, compared with the 
ideas prevalent among the Jews some hundred years 
later, at the time of the compilation of the Chro- 
nicles. Some passages cori'espond almost precisely 
word for word ; others agree, with slight but signi- 
ficant alterations. In some cases there are striking 
omissions ; in others there are no less remarkable 
additions. Without attempting to exhaust the sub- 
ject, some of the differences between the two histories 
will be now briefly poiuted out ; though at the same 
time it is to be borne in mind that, in drawing in- 
ferences fi'om them, it would be useful to review 
likewise all the differences between the Chronicles 
and the Book of Kings. 

1. In 1 Sam. xxxi. 12, it is stated that the men 
of Jabesh Gilead took the body of Saul and the 
bodies of his sons from the wall of Beth-shan, and 
came to .Jabesh and burnt them there. The com- 
piler of the Chronicles omits mention of the burning 
of their bodies, and, as it would seem, designedly; 
for he says that the valiant men of Jabesh Gilead 
buried the bones of Saul and his sons under the oak 
in Jabesh ; whereas if there had been no burning, 
the natural expression would have been to have 
spoken of burying their bodies, instead of their 
bones. Perhaps the chronicler objected so strongly 
to the burning of bodies 'that he purposely refrained 
from recording such a fact respecting the bodies of 
Saul and his sons, even under the peculiar circum- 
stances connected with that incident.? 

2. In the Chronicles it is assigned as one of the 
causes of Saul's defeat that he had asked counsel of 
one that had a familiar spirit, and " had not en- 
quired of Jehovah" (1 Chr. x. 1.3, 14); whereas in 
Samuel it is expressly stated (1 Sam. xxviii. 6) that 
Saul had inquired of Jehovah before he consulted the 
witch of Endor, but that Jehovah had not answered 
him either by dreams, or by Urim, or by prophets. 

3. The Chronicles make no mention of the civil 
war between David and Ishbosheth the son of Saul, 
nor of Abner's changing sides, nor his assassination 
by Joab, nor of the assassination of Ishbosheth by 
Kechab and Baanah (2 Sam. ii. 8-32, iii., iv.). 

4. David's adultery with Bathsheba, the ex- 
posure of Uriah to certain death by David's orders, 
the solemn rebuke of Nathan, ami the penitence of 
David, are all passed over in absolute silence in the 
Chronicles (2 Sam. xi., xii. 1-25). 

5. In the account given in Samuel (2 Sam. vi. 
2-11) of David's removing the Ark from Kirjath- 
jearim, no special mention is made of the priests or 
Levites. David's companions are said, generally, 
to have been " all the ]jeople that were with hmi," 

e Tacitus records it as a distinguisblng custom of the 
Jews,"corporaconderequamcremare, ex more Aegyptio" 
{Tlist. v. 5). And it is certain that, in later timos, they 
buried dead bodies, and did not burn them ; tliough, not- 
withstanding the instance in Gen. 1. 2, they did not, 
strictly speaking, embalm them, like the Egyptians. 
And though it may be suspected, it cannot bo proved, 
that they ever burned their dead in early times. The 


and " all the house of Israel " are said to have 
played before Jehovah on the occasion with all 
manner of musical instruments. In the correspond- 
ing passage of the Chronicles (1 Chi-, xiii. 1-14) 
David is represented as having publicly proposed to 
send an invitation to the priests and Levites in 
their cities and " suburbs," and this is said to have 
been assented to by all ,the congi'egation. Again, 
in the preparations which are made for the reception 
of the Ark of the Covenant at Jerusalem, nothing 
is said of the Levites in Samuel ; whereas in the 
Chronicles David is introduced as saying that none 
ought to carry the Ark of God but the Levites ; the 
special numbers of the Levites and of the children 
of Aaron are there given ; and names of Levites are 
specified as having been appointed singei's and players 
on musical instruments in connexion with the Aik 
(1 Chr. XV., xvi. 1-6). 

6. The incident of David's dancing in public with 
all his might befoi-e Jehovah, when the Ark was 
brought into Jerusalem, the censorious remarks of 
his wife Michal on David's conduct, David's answer, 
and Michal's punishment, are fully set forth in 
Samuel (2 Sam. vi. 14-23); but the whole subject 
is noticed in one verse only in Chronicles (1 Chr. 
XV. 29). On the other hand, no mention is made 
in Samuel of David's having composed a Psalm on 
this great event ; whereas in Chronicles a Psalm is 
set forth which David is represented as having deli- 
vered into the hand of Asaph and his brethren on 
that day (1 Chr. xvi. 7-36). Of this Psalm the 
first fifteen verses are almost precisely the same as 
in Ps. cv. 1-15. The next eleven vei'ses are the 
same as in Ps. xcvi. 1-11 ; and the next three con- 
cluding verses are in Ps. cvi. 1, 47,48. The last 
verse but one of this Psalm (1 Chr. xvi. 35) appears 
to have been written at the time of the Captivity. 

7. It is stated in Samuel that David in his con- 
quest of Moab put to death two-thirds either of the 
inhabitants or of the Moabitish army (2 Sam. 
viii 2). This fact is omitted in Chronicles (1 Chi-, 
xviii. 2), though the words used therein in men- 
tioning the conquest are so nearly identical with the 
beginning and the end of the passage in Samuel, 
that in the A. V. there is no difference in the 
translation of the two texts, " And he smote Moab ; 
and the Moabites became David's servants, and 
brought gifts." 

8. In 2 Sam. xxi. 19, it is stated that "there was 
a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan 
the son of Jaare-oregim, a Bethlehemite (in the ori- 
ginal Beit hal-lachmi), slew Goliath the Gittite, the 
staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam." In 
the parallel passage in the Chronicles (1 Chr. xx. 
5) it is stated that " Elhanan the son of Jair slew 
Lachmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite." Thus 
Lachmi, which in' the former case is merely part of 
an adjective describing Elhanan 's place of nativity, 
seems in the Chronicles to be the substantive name 
of the man whom Elhanan slew, and is so translated 
in the LXX. [Elhanan, i. 520 ; Lahmi, ii. 55.] 

9. In Samuel (2 Sam. xxiv. 1) it is stated that, 
the anger of Jehovah ha\nng been kindled against 
Israel, He moved David against them to give oideis 

passage in Am. vi. 10 is ambiguous. It may merely refer 
to the burning of bodies, as a sanitary precaution in a 
plague ; but it is not undoubted that burning is alluded 

to. See FUrst, «. v. P]1D. The burning for Asa (2 Chr. 

xvi. 1 4) is different from the burning of his body. Compare 
Jer. xxxiv. 5; 2 Chr. xxi. 19, 20; Joseph. Ant. xv. 3, iJJ, 
Uc Bdl. Jud. i. 33, }9. 


for taking a census of the poj)ul;ition. In the 
Chronicles •(! Chr. xxi. 1) it is mentioned thut 
David was provoked to take a census of the popu- 
latiou hij Satan. This last is the first and the only 
instance in which the name of Satan is introduced 
into any historical book of the Old Testement. In 
the Pentateuch Jehovah Himself is represented as 
hardening Pharaoh's heart (Ex. vii. 13), as in this 
passage of Samuel He is said to have incited David to 
give orders for a census. 

10. In the incidents connected with the three 
days' pestilence upon Israel on account of the census, 
some tacts of a veiy remarkable character are nar- 
rated in the Chronicles, which are not mentioned in 
the earlier histoiy. Thus in Chronicles it is stated 
of the Angel of Jehovah, that he stood between the 
earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his 
hand stretched over Jerusalem ; that afterwards 
Jehovah commanded the angel, and that the angel 
put up again his sword into its sheath'' (1 Chr. 
xxi. 15-27). It is further stated (ver. 20) that 
Oman and his four sons hid themselves when they 
saw the angel ; and that when David (ver. 26) had 
built an altar to Jehovah, and offered burnt-offer- 
ings to Him, Jehovah answered him from heaven by 
fire upon the altar of burnt-ofi'ering. Regarding all 
these circumstances there is absolute silence in the 
corresponding chapter of Samuel. 

11. The Chronicles make no mention of the hor- 
rible fact mentioned in the Book of Samuel (2 Sam. 
xxi. 0-9) that David permitted the Gibeonites to 
sacrifice seven sons of Saul to Jehovah, as an atone- 
ment for the injuries which the Gibeonites had 
formerly received from Saul. This barbarous act 
of superstition, which is not said to have been com- 
manded by Jehovah (ver. 1) is one of the most 
painful incidents in the life of David, and can 
scarcely be explained otherwise than by the supposi- 
tion either that David seized this opportunity to 
rid himself of seven possible rival claimants to the 
throne, or that he was, for a while at least, infected 
by the baneful example of the Phoenicians, who en- 
deavoured to avert the supposed wrath of their gods 
by human sacrifices [Phoenicia]. It was, per- 
haps, wholly foreign to the ideas of the Jews at the 
time when the Book of Chronicles was compiled. 

It only remains to add, that in the numerous 
instances wherein there is a close verbal agreement 
between passages in Samuel and in the Chronicles, 
the sound conclusion seems to be that the Chro- 
nicles were copied from Samuel, and not that both 
were copied from a common original. In a matter 
of this kind, we must proceed upon recognised 
jiiiiiciples of criticism. If a writer of the 3rd or 
4th century narrated events of Roman history almost 
precisely in the words of Livy, no critic vv'ould he- 
sitate to say that all such narratives were copied 
from Livy. It would be regarded ;is a very impro- 
bable hypothesis that they were copied fi-om docu- 
ments to which Livy and the later historian had 
equal access, especially when no proof whatever was 
adduced that any such original documents were in 
existence at the time of the later historian. The 
same principle applies to the relation in which the 
Chronicles stand to the Book of Samuel. There is 
not a particle of proof that the original documents, 
or any one of them, on which the Book of Samuel 
was founded were in existence at the time when the 

k The statue of the archangel Michael on the top of the 
mausoleum of Hadrian at Rome is in accordance with the 
tame idea. In a procession to St. Peter's, during a pes- 
tilence, Gregory the Great saw the archangel in a vision. 



Chronicles were compiled ; and in the absence of 
such proof, it must be taken for granted that, where 
there is a close verbal correspondence between the 
two works, the compiler of the Chronicles co])ipd 
passages, more or less closely, from the Book of 
Samuel. At the same time it would be unreason- 
able to deny, and it would be impossible to dis- 
prove, that the compiler, in addition to the Book of 
Samuel, made use of other historical documents 
which are no longer in existence. 

Literature. — The following list of Commentaries 
is given by De Wette: — Senarii, Seb. Schmidii, 
Jo. Clerici, Maur. Commentt. ; Jo. Drusii, An- 
notatt. in Locos diffic. Jos., Jud., et Sam. ; Vic- 
torini, Strigelii, Comrn. in Libr. Sam., Reg., et Pa- 
ralipp.. Lips. 1591, tbl. ; Casp. Sanctii, Comm. in 
LV. Lib. Reg: et Paraiipp., 1624-, fol. ; Hensler, 
Erkmtor'ingen dcs I. B. Sam. u. d. Salom. Dcnk- 
spriiche, Hamburg, 1795. The best modern Com- 
mentary seems to be that of Thenius, Exegetisches 
Handbuch, Leipzig, 1842. In this work there is 
an excellent Introduction, and an interesting de- 
tailed comparison of the Hebrew text in the Bible 
with the Translation of the Septuagint. There are 
no Commentaries on Samuel in Rosenmiiller's great 
work, or in the Compendium of his Scholia. 

The date of the composition of the Book of Samuel 
and its authorship is discussed in all the ordinary 
Introductions to the Old Testament — such as those 
of Horne, HUvernick, Keil, De Wette, which have 
been frequently cited in this work. To these may 
be added the following works, which have ap- 
peai'ed since the first volume of this Dictionary was 
printed : Bleek's Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 
Berlin, 1860, pp. 355-368; Stahelin's Speciellc 
Einleitung in die Kanonischen Biicher des Alten 
Testaments, Elberfeld, 1862, pp. 83-105 ; David- 
sou's Introduction to the Old Testament, London 
and Edinburgh, 1862, pp. 491-536. [E. T.] 

SANABAS'SAR ''Zafx.ava.ffffo.pos ; Alex. Sam- 
^dffcrapos: Salmanasarus). Sheshbazzar (1 Esd. 
ii. 12, 15 ; comp. Ezr. i. 8, 11). 

SANABAS'SAEUS {S.a&avaffffapos ; Alex. 
'S.ava^affffapos : Solinanasarus). SlIESIIBAZZAB 
(1 Esd. vi. 18, 20 ; comp. Ezr. v. 14, 16). 

SAN'ASIB {-iavaffi^; Alex. 'Avaaei^: Eli- 
asib). The sons of Jeddu, the son of Jesus, are 
reckoned " among the sons of Sanasib," as priests 
who retumed with Zorobabel (1 Esd. v. 24). 

SANBAL'LAT {'ch^^O : 2ava/3aAAaT : Sana- 
ballat). Of uncertain etymology; according to Gese- 
nius after von Bofclen, meaning in Sanscrit " giving 
strength to the army," but according to Fiirst " a 
chestnut tree." A Moabite of Horonaim, as appears 
by his designation " Sanballat the Horonite " ( Neh. 
ii. 10, 19, xiii. 28). All that we know of him 
fi'om Scripture is that he haii apparently some civil 
or military command in Samaria, in the service of 
Artaxerxes (Neh. iv. 2), and that, from the moment 
of Nehemiah's arrival in Judaea, he set himself to 
oppose every measure for the welfare of Jerusalem , 
and was a constant adversary to the Tirshatha. 
His companions in this hostility were Tobiah the 
Ammonite, and Geshem the Arabian (Neh. ii. 19, 
iv. 7). For the details of their opposition the 
reader is referred to the articles Neuemiah and 

as he is supposed to be represented in the statue. It is 
owing to this that the fortress subsequently had the name 
of the Castle of St. Angelo. See Murray's Handbook foi- 
Rome, p. 67, 6th edit. 1862. 



Nehemiah, Book of, and to Neh. vi., where the 
enmity between Sanballat and the Jews is brouglit 
out in the strongest colours. The only other inci- 
dent in his lite is his alliance with the high-priest's 
family by the marriage of his daughter with one 
of the grandsons of Eliashib, which, from the 
similar connexion formed by Tobiah the Ammonite 
(Neh. xiii. 4), appears to have been pait of a 
settled policy concerted between Eliashib and the 
Samaritan faction. The expp.lsion from tlie priest- 
hood of the guiltv son of Joiada by Nehemiah 
must have still further widened the breach between 
him and Sanballat, and between the two parties in 
the Jewish state. Here, however, the Scriptui-al 
narrative ends — owing, probably, to Nehemiah's 
return to Persia — and with it likewise o^^i" know- 
ledge of Sanballat. 

But on turning to the pages of Josephus a 
wholly new set of actions, in a totally different 
time, is brought before lis in connexion with San- 
ballat, while his name is entirely omitted in the 
account there given of the government of Nehe- 
miah, which is placed in the reign of Xerxes. 
Josephus, after inteiposing the whole reign of 
Artaxei'xes Longimanus between the death of Nehe- 
miah and the transactions in which Sanballat took 
part, and utteily ignoring the very existence of Darius 
Nothus, Artaxerxes Mnemon, Ochus, &c., jumps 
at once to the reign of " Darius the last king," 
and tells us (Ant. xi. 7, §2) that Sanballat was his 
officer in Samaria, that he was a Cuthean, i. e, a 
Samaritan, by birth, and that he gave his daughter 
Nicaso in marriage to IManasseh, the brother of the 
high-priest Jaddua, and consequently the fourth in 
descent from Eliashib, who was high-priest in the 
time of Nehemiah. He then relates that on the 
threat of his brother Jaddua and the other Jews to 
expel him from the priesthood unless he divorced 
his wife, Manasseh stated the case to Sanballat, 
who thereupon promised to use his influence with 
king Darius, not only to give him Sanballat's 
government, but to sanction the building of a rival 
temple on IMount Gerizim of which Manasseh 
should be the high-priest. Manasseh on this agreed 
to retain his wife and join Sanballat's faction, 
which was further strengthened by the accession 
of all those priests and Levites (and they were 
many) who had taken strange wives. But just 
at this time happened the invasion of Alexander 
the Great ; and Sanballat, with 7000 men, joined 
him, and renounced his allegiance to Darius (Ant. 
xi. 8, §+). Being favourably received by the con- 
queror, he took the opportunity of speaking to him 
in behalf of Manasseh. He represented to him how 
much it was for his interest to divide the strength 
of the Jewish nation, and how many there were who 
wished for a temple in Samaria ; and so obtained 
Alexander's pci'mission to build the temple on 
Mount Gerizim, and make Manasseh the heredi- 
tary high-priest. Shortly after this, Sanballat died ; 

a He says that Alexander appointed Andromachus 
governor of Judea and the neighbouring districts ; tliat 
the Samaritans murdered him ; and that Alexander on 
his return look Samaria in revenge, and settled a colony 
of Macedonians in it, and the inhabitants of Samaria 
retired to Slchem. 

*• Such a time, e. g., as when the Book of Ecclesiastics 
was written, in which we read (ch. 1. 25, 26), " There Ije 
two manner of nations which mine heart abliorrcth, and 
the third is no nation : they that sit upon the mountain 
of Samaria^ and they that dwell among the Philistines, 
and that foolish people that dwell in Sichem." 


but the temple on Moimt Gerizim remained, and 
the Shechemites, as they were called, continued 
also as a permanent schism, which was continually 
fed by all the lawless and disaffected Jews. Such 
is Josephus's account. Jf there is any truth in it, 
of course the Sanballat of whom he speaks is a 
different person from the Sanballat of Nehemiah, 
who flourished fully one hundred years earlier ; 
but when we put together Josephus's silence con- 
cerning a Sanballat in Nehemiah's time, and the 
many coincidences in the lives of the Sanballat of 
Nehemiah and that of Josephus, together with the 
inconsistencies in Josephus's narrative (pointed out 
by Prideaux, Connect, i. 466, 288, 290), and 
its disagreement with what Eusebius tells of the 
relations of Alexander with Samaria* {Chron. Can. 
lib. post. p. 346), and remember how apt Jose- 
phus is to follow any narrative, no matter how 
anachronistic and inconsistent with Scripture, we 
shall have no difficulty in concluding that his ac- 
count of Sanballat is not historical. It is doubt- 
less taken from some apocryphal romance, now 
lost, in which the writer, living under the em- 
pire of tlie Greeks, and at a time when the 
enmity of the Jews and Samaritans was at its 
height,'' chose the downfall of the Persian empire 
for the epoch, and Sanballat for the ideal instru- 
ment, of the consolidation of the Samaritan Church 
and the erection of the temple on Gerizim. To 
borrow events from some Scripture narrative and 
introduce some Scriptural personage, without anv 
regard to chronology or other propriety, was 
the regular method of such apociyphal books. 
See 1 lilsJias, apocryphal Esther, apocryphal addi- 
tions to the Book of Daniel, and the articles on 
them, and the story inserted by the LXX. after 
2 K. xii. 24, &c., with the observations on it at 
p. 91 of this volume. To receive as historical 
Josephus's narrative of the building of the Sa- 
maritan temple by Sanballat, circumstantial as it 
is in its account of Manasseh 's relationship to 
Jaddua, and Sanballat's intercourse with both 
Darius Codomanus and Alexander the Great, and 
yet to transplant it, as Prideaux does, to the 
time of Darius Nothus (B.C. 409), seems scarcely 
compatible with sound criticism. Eor a furtlier 
discussion of this subject, see the article Nehe- 
miah, Book of, p. 491 ; Prideaux, Connect, i. 
395-6; Geneal. of our Lord, p. 323, &c. ; Mill's 
Vindic. of our Lord's Geneal. p. 165; Hales's 
Analys. ii. 534. [A. C. H.] 

SANDAL (Py: : vwSS-nna, <TwSd\iov). The 
sandal appears to have been the article ordinarily 
used by the Hebrews for protecting the feet. It 
consisted simply of a sole attached to the foot by 
thongs. The Hebrew term na'al^ implies such an 
article, its proper sense being that of con/jim^f or 
shutting in the foot witli thongs : we have also 
express notice of the thong >* ('Tinb' ; lixds ; A. V. 

c In the A. V. this term is invariably rendered " shoes." 
There is, however, little reason to think that the Jews 
really wore shoes, and the expressions which Carpzov 
(Apparat. pp. 781, 782) quotes to prove that they did— 
(vizT. " put the blood of war in his shoes," 1 K. ii. 5 ; •' make 
men go over in shoes," Is. xi. 15), are equally adapted to 
the sandal— the first signify ing that the blood was sprinkled 
on (he thong of the sandal, the second that men should 
cross the river on foot instead of in boats. Tlic shoes 
found in Egypt probably belonged to Greeks CWilkinson, 
ii. 333). 

'' Thf terms applied to the removal of the .=;hoe (^OH- 


"shoe-latchet") in several passages (Gen. xiv. 23; 
Is. V. 27 ; Mark i. 7). The Greek term virdS-n/xa 
properly applies to the sandal exclusively, as it 
means what is bound under the foot ; but no stress 
can be laid on the use of the term by the Alexan- 
drine wiiteis, as it was applied to any covering of 
the foot, even to the military caliga of the Romans 
(Joseph. B. J. vi. 1, §8). A similar observation 
applies to aavSaKiov, which is used in a general, 
and not in its strictly classical sense, and was adopted 
in a Hebraized . mi by the Talmudists. We have 
no description of the sandal in the Bible itself, but 
the deficiency can be supplied from collateral sources. 
Thus we learn from the Talmudists that the ma- 
terials employed in the construction of the sole 
were either leather, felt, cloth, or wood (Mishn. 
Jeham. 12, §1, 2), and that it was occasionally 
shod with iron {Sahh. 6. §2). In Egypt various 
fibrous substances, such as ^lalm leaves and papyrus 
stalks, were used in addition to eather (Herod, ii. 
37 ; Wilkinson, ii. 332, 333), while in Assyria, 
wood or leather was employed (Layard, Nin. ii. 
323, 324). In Egypt the sandals were usually 
turned up at the toe like our skates, though other 
forms, rounded and pointed, are also exhibited. In 
Assyria the heel and the side of the foot were en- 
cased, and sometimes the sandal consisted of little 
else than this. This does not appe:u- to have been 



Assyiian Sandals. (From Layard, ii. 234.) 

the case in Palestine, for a heel-strap was essential 
to a proper sandal {Jeham. 12, §1). Great atten- 
tion was paid by the ladies to their sandals ; they 
were made of the skin of an animal, named tachash 
(Ez. xvi. 10), whether a hyena or a seal (A. V. 
"badger"), is doubtful: the skins of a hsh (a 
species of Halicore) are used for this purpose in the 
peninsula of Sinai (Robinson, Bib. Res. i. 116). 
The thongs were handsomely embroidered (Cant. 
vii. 1 ; Jud. x. 4, xvi. 9), as were those of the 
Greek ladies (Z'«cf.o/.4Mf. s. v. "Sandalium"). San- 
dals were worn by all classes of society in Palestine, 
even by the very poor (Am. viii. 6), and both the san- 
dal and the thong or shoe-latchet were so cheap dnd 
common, that they passed into a proverb for the most 
insignificant thing (Gen. xiv. 23 ; Ecclus. xlvi. 19). 
They were not, however, worn at all periods ; they 
were dispensed with in-doors, and were only put 
on by persons about to undertake some business 
away from their homes ; such as a military expe- 
dition (Is. V. 27 ; Eph. vi. 15), or a journey (Ex. 
xii. 11; Josh. ix. 5, 13; Acts xii. 8): on such 
occasions persons carried an extra pair, a practice 
which cm- Lord objected to as far as the Apostles 

wei-e concerned (Matt. x. 10 ; compare Mark vi. 9, 
and the expression in Luke x. 4, "do not airry," 
which hai-monizes the passages). An exti-a pair 
might in ceitain cases be needed, as the soles were 
liable to be soon worn out (Josh. ix. 5), or the 
thongs to be broken (Is. v. 27). During meal- 
times the feet were undoubtedly uncovered, as im- 
plied in Luke vii. 38 ; John xiii. 5, 6, and in the 
exception specially made in reference to the Paschal 
feast (Ex. xii. 11) ; the same custom must have 
pievailed wherever reclining at meals was practised 
(comp. Plato, Syinpos. p. 213). It was a mark of 
reverence to cast off the shoes in approaching a place 
or person of eminent sanctity : ' hence the com- 
mand to Moses at the bush (Ex. iii. 5) and to 
Joshua in the presence of the angel (,Iosh. v. 15). 
In deference to these injunctions the priests are said 
to have conducted their ministrations in the Temple 
barefoot (Theodoret, ad Ex. iii. qiiaest. 7), and the 
Talmudists even forbade any person to pass through 
the Temple with shoes on (Mishn. Berach. 9, §5). 
This reverential act was not peculiar to the Jews : 
in ancient times we have instances of it in the 
worship of Cybele at Rome (Prudent. Peris. 154), 
in the worship of Isis as represented in a picture at 
Herculaneum {Ant. d'Ercol. ii. 320;, and in the 
practice of the Egyptian priests, according to Sil. 
Ital. iii. 28. In modern times we may compare the 
similar practice of the Mohammedans of Palestine 
before entering a mosk (Robinson's Besearches, ii. 
36), and particularly before entering the Kaaba at 
Mecca (Burckhardt's Arabia, i. 270), of the Yezidis 
of Mesopotamia before entering the. tomb of their 
patron saint (Layard's Nin. i. 282), and of the Sa- 
maritans as they tread the summit of Mount Ge- 
rizim (Robinson, ii. 278). The practice of the 
modern Egyptians, who take off their shoes before 
stepping on to the carpeted leewdn, appears to be 
dictated by a feeling of reverence rather than clean- 
liness, that spot being devoted to prayer (Lane, 
i. 35). It was also an indication of violent emotion, 
or of mourning, if a person appeared barefoot in 
public (2 Sam. xv. 30 ; Is. xx. 2 ; Ez. xxiv. 
17, 23). This again was held in common with 
other nations, as instanced at the funeral of Au- 
gustus (Suet. Aug. 100), and on the occasion of 
the solemn processions which derived their name of 
Nudipedaiia from this featuie (Tertull. Apol. 40). 
To cany or to unloose a person's sandal was a me- 
nial ortice betokening great inferiority on the part 
ot the person performing it ; it was "hence selected 
by John the Baptist to express his relation to the 
Messiah (Matt. iii. 11; Mark :. 7; John i. 27; 
Acts xiii. 25). The expression in Ps. Ix. 8, cviii. 
9, " over Edom will I cast out my shoe," evidently 
signifies the subjection of that country, but the 
exact point of the compai'ison is obscure ; for it may 
refer either to the custom of handing the sandal tu 
a slave, or to that of claiming possession of a pro- 
perty by planting the foot on it, or of acquiring it 
by the symbolical action of casting the shoe, or 
again, Edom may be regarded in the still more sub- 
ordinate position of a shelf on which the sandals 
were rested while their owner bathed his feet. The 
use of the shoe in the transfer of property is noticed 
in Ruth iv. 7, 8, and a similar significancy was 
attached to the act in connexion with tlie repudia- 
tion of a Levirate marriage (Deut. xxv. 9). Shoe- 

Deut. xxv. 10; Is. xx. 2; and *Q^, Ruth iv. 7) Imply 
that the thongs were either so numerous or ao broad as 
almost to cover the top of the foot. 

« It is worthy of observation that the tenn used for 
"putting off" the shoes on these occasions is peculiar 
Ot^D). and conveys the notion of violence and haste. 




making, or rather strap-making {i. e. making the , is not a perfect agreement among the learned 
straps for the sand;\lsj, was a recognised trade among The nearly unanimous opinion of the Jews is given 
the Jews (Mishn. i-'esoc/i. 4, §6j. [W. L. B.] " " '" ' '" ' ' ' "' " " — 

SAN'HEDRIM (accurately Sanhedrin.innnjp. 
formed from ffvveSptov : the attempts of the Rab- 
bins to find a Hebrew etymology are idle ; Buxtorf, 
Lex. Chald. s. v.), called also in the Talmud the 

in the Mishna (Sanhedr. i. 6) : " the gi'eat iSan- 
hediim consisted of seventy-one judges. How is 
this proved? From Num. xi. 16, where it is 
said, ' gather unto me seventy men of the elders of 
Israel.' To these add Moses, and we have seventy- 
Nevei-theless R. Judah says there wore 

great Sanhedrin, the supreme council of the Jewish j seventy." The same difference made by the addi 
people in the time of Christ and earlier. In the j ^j^^ ^r exclusion of Jloses, appeals in the works 
Mishna it is also styled ]''"'] n*3, Beth Lin, "house ' of Christian writers, which accounts for the vaiia- 
of judgment." j tion in the books between seventy and seventy- 

1. The origin of this assembly is traced in the | one. Baionius, however {Ad Ann. 31, §10), and 
lilishna (Sanhedr. i. 6) to the seventy elders I many other Roman Catholic writers, together witji 
whom Moses was directed (Num. xi. 16, 17) to ^ not a few Piotestants, as Dnisius, Grotiiis, Pri- 
associate with him in the government of the ; deaux, Jahn, Bretschneider, etc., hold that the true 
Israelites. This body continued to exist, according I nunroer was seventy-two, on the ground that Eldad 
to the Rabbinical accounts, down to the close ■ and Medad, on whom it is expressly said the Spirit 
of the Jewish commonwealth. Among Christian rested (Num. xi. 26), remained in the camp, and 
writers Schickhard, Isaac Casaubon, Salmasius, should be added to the seventy (see Hartmann, 
Seldeu, and Grotius have held the same view. Verbindung des A. T. p. 182; tieUen, De Synedr. 
Since the time of Vorstius, who toolc the ground ; lib. ii. cap. 4). Between these three numbeis, 
{De Synhedriis, §2.5-40) that the alleged identity ' that given by the prevalent Jewish tradition is 
between the assembly of seventy elders mentioned certainly to be preferred ; but if, as we have 
in Num. xi. 16, 17, and the Sanhedrim which seen, there is really no evidence for the identity 
existed in the later period of the Jewish common- ; of the seventy elders summoned by Jloses, and 
wealth, was simply a conjecture of the Raljbins, and ' the Sanhedrim existing after the Babylonish caji- 
that there are no traces of such a tribunal in Deut. j tivity, the argument from Num. xi. 16 in respect 
xvii. 8, 10, nor in the age of Joshua and the judges, to the number of members of which the latter 
nor during the reign of the kings, it has been gener- boily consisted, has no force, and we are left, as 
ally admitted that the tribunal established by Moses Keil maintains (^rc/iao'ojje, ii. §259), without 
was probably temporary, and did not continue to any certain information on the point. 

exist after the Israelites had enteied Palestine (Winer, 
Realworterh. art. " Synedrium "). 

In the lack of definite historical information as 
to the establishment of the Sanhedrim, it can 
only be said in general that the Greek etymology 
of the name seems to point to a period subse- 
quent to the Macedonian supremacy in Palestine. 
Livy expressly states (xiv. 32), " pronuntiatum 
quod ad stiitum Macedoniae pertinebat, senatores, 
quos synedros ^'ocant, legendos esse, quorum con- 
silio respublica administraretur." The fact that 
Herod, when procurator of Galilee, was sum- 
moned before the Sanhedrim (B.C. 47) on the 
ground that in putting men to death he had 
usurped the authority of the body (Jos. Ant. xiv. 
9, §4) shows that it then possessed much power 
and was not of very recent origin. If the yepov- 
ffia Toiv 'lovSaiusv, in 2 Mace. i. 10, iv. 44, xi. 27, 
designates the Sanhedrim — as it probably does — 
this is the earliest historical trace of its existence. 
On these grounds the opinion of Vorstius, Witsius, 
Winer, Keil, and others, may be regarded as pro- 
bable, that the Sanhedrim described in the Talmud 
arose after the return of the Jews from Babylon, 
and in the time of the Seleucidae or of the Hasmo- 
nean princes. 

In the silence of Philo, Josephus, and the Mishna 
respecting the constitution of the Sanhedrim, we 
are obhged to depend upon the few incidental 
notices in the New Testament. From these we 
gather that it consisted of apxi^p^'is, chief 
priests, or the heads of the twenty-four classes 
into which the priests were divided (including, 
])robably, those who had been high-priests), irpea-- 
^vrepoi, elders, men of age and experience, and 
ypajxixarus, scribes, lawyers, or those learned in 
the Jewish law (Matt. xxvi. 57, 59; Mark xv. 1 ; 
Luke x.\ii. 06 ; Acts v. 21). 

2. The number of members is usually given as 
seventv-one, but this is a point on which there 

The president of this body was styled N^^J, 
Nasi, and, according to Maimonides and Lightfoot, 
was chosen on account of his eminence in worth 
and wisdom. Often, if not generally, this pre- 
eminence was accorded to the high-priest. That 
the high-priest presided at- the condemnation of 
Jesus (Matt. xxvi. 62) is plain from the narra- 
tive. The vice-president, called in the Talmud 
|''"n n"'3 Il{<, "father of the house of judgment," 
sat at the right hand of the president. Some writers 
speak of a second vice-president, styled DDH 
" wise," but this is not sufficiently confirmed (see 
Selden, De Synedr. p. 156, seq.). The Babylonian 
Gemara states that there were two scribes, one of 
whom registered the votes for acquittal, the other 
those for condemnation. In Matt. xxvi. 58 ; 
Mark xiv. 54, &c., the lictors or attendants of 
the Sanhedrim are refen-ed to under the name of 
inrripfrai. While in session the Sanhedrim sat in 
the form of a half circle {Gem. Ilieros. Const, vii. 
ad Sanhedr. i.), with all which agrees the state- 
ment of Maimonides (quoted by Vorstius) : "him 
who excels all others in wisdom they appoint head 
over them and head of the assembly. And he it 
is whom the wise everywhere call Nasi, and he is 
in the place of our ma-ster Moses. Likewise him 
who is the oldest among the seventy, they place 
on the right hand, and him they call ' father of 
the hofase'of judgment.' The rest of the seventy 
sit before these two, according to their dignity, iu 
the form of a semicircle, so that the president and 
vice-president may have them all in sight." 

3. The 2^i<^^ in which the sessions of the San- 
hedrim were ordinarily hold was, according to the 
Talmud, ahall called lf-T5, Gazzith {Sanhedr. x.), 
supposed by Lightfoot ( Works, i. 2005) to have 
been situated in the south-east comer of one of the 
courts near the 'lemple building. In special exi- 


gencies, however, it seems to have met in tlie 
residence of the high-priest (Matt. xxvi. 8). Forty 
years before the destruction of Jerusalem, and con- 
sequently while tlie Saviour was teaching in Pales- 
tine, the sessions of the Sanhedrim weie removed 
from the hall Gazzith to a somewhat greater 
distance from the temple buiUing, although still 
on Mt. Moriah (Abod. Ziira i. Gem. Baby), ad 
Sanhedr. v.). After several other clianges, its 
seat was finally established at Tiberias (Lightfoot, 
Wor/is, ii. 365). 

As a judicial body the Sanhedrim constituted a 
supreme court, to which belonged in the first 
instance the trial of a tiibe fallen into idolatry, 
lalse prophets, and the high-priest (Mishna, San- 
hedr. i.) ; also the other priests (ifiddoth, v.). 
As an administrative council it determined other 
important niatteis. Jesus was arraigned before 
this body as a false prophet (John xi. 47), and 
Peter, John, Stephen, and Paul as teachers of 
error and deceivers of the people. From Acts is. 
2 it appears that the Sanhedrim exercised a degree 
of authority beyond the limits of Palestine. Ac- 
cording to the Jerusalem Gemara (quoted by 
Selden, lib. ii. c. 15, 11), the power of inflicting 
capital punishment was takea away from this 
tribunal forty years before the destruction of Jeru- 
salem. With this agrees the answer of the Jews 
to Pilate (John six. 31), " It is not lawful for us 
to put any man to death." Beyond the arrest, 
trial, and condemnation of one convicted of vio- 
lating the ecclesiastical law, the jurisdiction of 
the Sanhedrim at the time could not be extended ; 
the confirmation and execution of the sentence in 
capital cases belonged to the Roman procurator. 
The stoning of Stephen (x\cts vii. 56, &c.) is only 
an apparent exception, for it was either a tu- 
nmltuous procedure, or, if done by order of the 
Sanhedrim, was an illegal assumption of power, 
as Josephus {Ant. xx. 9, §1) expressly declares the 
execution of the Apostle James during the absence 
of the procuiator to have been (Winer, Eealwh. 
art. " Synedrium "). 

The Talmud also mentions a lesser Sanhedrim of 
twenty-three members in every city in Palestine in 
which were not less than 1 20 householders ; but 
respecting these judicial bodies Josephus is entirely 

The leading work on the subject is Selden, De 
Synedriis et Praefeduris Jiiridicis vcterum Ebrae- 
orum, Lond. 1650, Amst. 1679, 4to. It exhibits 
immense learning, but introduces much irrelevant 
matter, and is written in a heavy and unattractive 
style. The monogi-aphs of Vorstius and W^itsius, 
contained in Ugolini's Thesaurus, vol. xxv. are able 
and judicious. The same volume of Ugolini con 
tains also the Jerusalem and Babylonian Gemaras, 
along with the Mishna on the iSanhedrim, with 
which may be compared I>uo Tituli Talmudioi 
Sanliedriti et Maccoth, ed. Jo. Coch, Amst. 1629, 
4to., and Maimonides, De Sanhedriis et Poenis, 
ed. Houting. Amst. 1695, 4to. Hartmann, Die 
Verhindmifi des Alien Testaments mit dem Neuen, 
Hamb. 18:31, 8vo., is worthy of consultation, and 
for a compressed exhibition of the subject, Winer, 
Rcalwb. and Keil, Archacolojie. [G. D. E.~| 

SANSAN'NAH (n3D3D : Seflewci/c ; Alex. 
2,av(rauva: Sensenna). One of the towns in the 
south district of Judah, named in Josh. xv. 31 only. 
The towns of this district are not distributed into 
small groups, like those of the highlands or the 




Shefelah ; and as only very few of tliem have been 
yet identified, we have nothing to guide us to the 
position of Sansannah. It can hardlv h.ave had any 
connexion with Kikjath-Sannah (Kirjath-Sepher, 
or Debir), which was probably near Hebron, many 
miles to the north of the most northern position 
possilile for Sansannaii. It does not appear to be 
mentioned by any explorer, ancient or modern. 
Gesenius {Tnes. 962) explains the name to mean 
" palm branch ;" but this is contradicted by Fiirst 
{Hwb. ii. 88), who derives it from a root which 
signifies " writing." The two propositions are pro- 
bably equally wide of the mark. The conjecture 
of Schwarz that it was at Simsim, on the valley of 
the same name, is less feasible than usual. 

The termination of the name is singular (comp. 

By comparing the list of Josh. xv. 26-32 with 
those in xix. 2-7 and 1 Chr. iv. 28-33, it will be 
seen that Beth-marcaboth and Hazar-susim, or 
-susah, occupy in tlie two last the place of Mad- 
mannah and Sansannah respectively in the first. 
In like manner Shilhim is oxclumged for Sharuhen 
and Shaaraim. It is difficult to believe that these 
changes can have arisen from the mistakes of copy- 
ists solely, but equally difficult to assign any other 
satisfactory reason. Prof. Stanley has suggested 
that Beth-mai-caboth and Hazar-susim are tokens 
of the trade in chariots and horses which ai'ose in 
Solomon's time ; but, if so, how conies it that the 
new names bear so close a lesemblance in form to 
the old ones ? [G.] 

SAPH(?lp: 2e>; Alex. Se^e: Saph). One 

of the sons of the giant {'Vacpd, Arapha) slain by 
Sibbechai the Hushathite in the battle against the 
Philistines at Gob or Gaza (2 Sam. xxi. 18). In 
1 Chr. sx. 4 he is called SiPPAl. The title of Ps. 
cxliii. in- the Peshito Syriac is, " Of David : when 
he slew Asaph (Saph) the brother of Gulyad 
(Goliath), and thanksgiving for that he had con- 

SA'PHAT {^a^6.T : om. in Vulg.). She- 
PHATIAH 2(1 Esd. V. 9 ; comp. Eer. ii. 4). 

SAPHATI'AS (Sa^aTi'as : Saphatias). She- 
PHATIAH 2 (1 Esd. viii. 34 ; comp. Ezr. viii. 8). 

SA'PHETH (2a(/)uj; Alex. 2a^i;0t' : Saphmi). 
Shephatiah (1 Esd. v. 33; comp. Ezr. ii. 57). 

SA'PHIR ("l^SK', t. e. Shaphir : Ka\us : pul- 
chra, but in Jerome's Comment. Saphir'). One of 
the villages addressed by the Prophet Micah (i. 11), 
but not elsewhere mentioned. By Eusebius and 
Jerome {Onomast. "Saphir") it is described as 
" in the mountain district between Eleutheropolis 
and Ascalon." In this direction a village called 
es-Sau-dfir still exists (or rather three of that name, 
two with affixes), possibly the representative of 
the ancient Saphir (Rob. B. R. ii. S4: note ; Van 
de Velde, Syr. ^ Pal. 159). Es-Sawdfir lies seven 
or eight miles to the N.E. of Ascalon, and about 
12 W. of Beit-Jibrin, to the right of the coast-road 
from Gaza. Tobler prefers a village called Saber, 
close to Sawdfir, containing a copious and apparently 
very ancient well (3tte Wanderung, 47). In one im- 
portant respect, however, the position of neither of 
these agrees with the notice of the Onomasticon, 
since it is not near the mountains, but on the open 
plain of the Shefelah. But as Beit-Jibrin, the 
ancient Eleutheropolis, stands on the western slopes 
of the mountains of Judah, it is difficult to under- 

4 D 



stiind how any place could be westward of it (». e. 
between it and Ascalou), and yet be itself in the 
mountain district, unless that expression may refer 
to places which, though situated in the plain, were 
for some reason considered as belonging to the 
towns of the mountains. We have already seen 
reason to suspect that tiie reverse was the case with 
some others. [Keilah ; Nezih, &c.] 

Schwarz, though aware of the existence of Sa- 
wafir (p. 116), suggests as a more feasible identifi- 
cation the village of Safirhjeh, a couple of miles 
N.W. of Lydda (136). The drawback to this is, 
that the places mentioned by Micah appear, as far as 
we can trace them, to be mostly near Beit-Jibrin, 
and in addition, that Safiriyeh is in clear contradic- 
tion to the notice of Eusebius and Jerome. [G.] 

SAPPHFEA (2aTr(^ef/3r; = either "sapphire," 
from crdir(p(ipos, or " beautiful," fi-om the Syriac 
NT5C'). The wife of Ananias, and the participator 
both in his guilt and in his punishment (Acts v. 
1-10). The interval of three hours that elapsed 
between the two deaths, Sapphira's ignorance of 
what had happened to her husband, and the pre- 
dictive language of St. Peter towards her, are de- 
cisive evidences as to the supernatural character of 
the whole transaction. The history of Sapphira's 
death thus supplements tliat of Ananias's, which 
might otherwise have been attributed to natural 
causes. [W. L. B.] 

SAPPHIRE (T'SD, sajiptr : adTr(peipos : sap- 
phirus). A precious stone, apparently of a bright 
blue colour, see Ex. xxiv. 10, where the God of 
Israel is represented as being seen in vision by 
Moses and the Elders with " a paved work of a 
sappir stone, and as it were the body of heaven in 
its clearness " (com p. Ez. i. 26). The sappir wa= 
the second stone in the second row of the high- 
priest's breastplate (Ex. xxviii. 18) ; it was ex- 
tremely precious (Job xxviii. 16) ; it was one of 
the precious stones that ornamented the king of 
Tyre (Ez. xxviii. 13). Notwithstanding the identity 
of name between our sapphire and the crdTr<p€ipos, 
and scq-tphirus of the Greeks and Romans, it is ge- 
nerally agreed that the sapphirus of the ancients 
was not our gem of that name, viz., the azure or 
indigo-blue, crystalline variety of Corundum, but 
our Lapis-lazuli ( Ultra-marine) ; this point may 
be regarded as established, for Pliny {N. H. xxxvii. 
9) thus speaks of the Sapphirus, " It is refulgent 
with spots of gold, of an azure colour sometimes, 
but not often purple; the best kind comes from 
Media ; it is never transparent, and is not well 
suited for engraving upon when intersected with 
hard crystalline particles." This desciiption an- 
swers exactly to the character of the Lapis-lazuli ; 
the "crystalline particles" of Pliny are crystals of 
iron pyrites, which often occur with this mineral. 
It is, however, not so certain that the Sappir of 
the Hebrew Bible is identical with the Lapis-lazuli ; 
for the Scriptural requirements demand ti-anspa- 
rency, great value and good material for the en- 
graver's art, all of which combined chaiacters the 
Lapis-lazuli does not possess in any great degree. 
Mr. King {Antique Gems, p. 44) says that intagli 
and camei of Roman times are frequent in the 
material, but rarely any works of much merit. 
Again, the Sappir was certainly pellucid, " sane apud 
Judaeos," says Biaun {I>c Vest,. Sac. y. 6S0, ed. 
1680), " saphiros ])pllucid;i.s notas fuisso manifcstis- 
simum est, adeo etiam ut pcllucidum illonnn phi- 


losophis dicatur TSD, Saphir." Beckmann {Hist, 
of Invent, i. 472) is of opinion that the Sappir ol 
the Hebrews is the same as the Lapis-lazuli ; Rosen- 
miiller and Braun argue in favour of its being our 
sapphire or precious Corundum. We are inclined 
to adopt this latter opinion, but are unable to come 
to any satistiictory conclusion. [W. H.J 

SA'RA (2d;5po : Sara). 1. Sarah, the wife 
of Abraham (Heb. xi. 11 ; 1 Pet. iii. 6). 

2. The daughter of Raguel, in the apocryphal 
history of Tobit. As the story goes, she had been 
married to seven husbands, who were all slain on 
the wedding night by Asmodeus the evil spirit, who 
loved her (Tob. iii. 7). The breaking of the spell 
and the chasing away of the evil spirit by the 
" fishy fume," when Sara was mauled to Tobias, 
are told in chap. viii. 

SARABI'AS {'^ias : Sarehias). Shere- 
BiAH (1 Esd. ix. 48; comp. Neh. viii. 7). 

SA'RAH (m'kT, "princess:" Stip^a: Sara: 
originally '•"lEi' : 2apa : Sarai). 1. The wife of 

Abraham, and mother of Isaac. 

Of her birth and parentage we have no certain 
account in Scripture. Her name is first introduced 
in Gen. xi. 29, as follows : " Abram and Nahor 
took them wives : the name of Abram's wife was 
Sarai ; and the name of Nahor's wife was Mil- 
cah, the daughter of Haran, the Mher of Milcah 
and the father of Iscah." In Gen. xx. 12, Abraham 
speaks of her as " his sister, the daughter of the 
same father, but not the daughter of the same 
mother." The common Jewish tradition, taken for 
granted by Josephus {Ant. i. c. 6, §6) and by St. 
Jerome {Quaest. Hebr. ad Genesin, vol. iii. p. 323, 
ed. Ben. 1735), is that Sarai is the same as Iscah, 
the daughter of Haran, and the sister of Lot, who 
is called Abraham's " brother" in Gen. xiv. 14, 16. 
Judging from the fact that Rebekah, the grand- 
daughter of Nahor, was the wife of Isaac the son 
of Abraham, there is reason to conjecture that 
Abraham was the youngest brother, so that his 
wife might not improbably be younger than the 
wife of Nahor. It is certainly strange, if the tra- 
dition be true, that no direct mention of it is found 
in Gen.xi. 29. But it is not improbable in itself; 
it supplies the account of the descent of the mother 
of the chosen race, the omission of which in such a 
passage is most unlikely ; and there is no other to 
set against it. 

The change of her name from " Sarai " to " Sa- 
rah" was made at the same time that Abram's 
name was changed to Abraham, on the establish- 
ment of the covenant of circumcision between him 
and God. That the name " Sarah " signifies " prin- 
cess" is universally acknowledged. But the mean- 
ing of " Sarai " is still a subject of controversy. 
The older interpreters (as, for example, St. Jerome 
in Quaest. Hebr., and those who follow him) sup- 
pose it to mean " my jirincess ;" and explain the 
change from Sarai to Sarah, as signifying that she 
was no longer the queen of one family, but the 
royal ancestress of " all families of the earth." They 
also suppose that the addition of the letter H, as 
taken from the sacred Tetragrammaton Jehovah, to 
the names of Abram and Sarai, mystically signified 
their being received into covenant with the Lord. modern Hebraists there is great divoisity of 
intci-|iretaticin. One opinion, keeping to the same 
general derivation as that referred to above, explains 


"Sai:ii"as " noble," " nobility," &c., an explana- 
tion which, even more than the other, labours under 
the objection of giving little force to the change. 
Another opinion supposes Sarai to be a contracted 
form of nnb* {Serdydh), and to signify " Jehovah 
is ruler." But this gives no force whatever to the 
change, and besides introduces the same name Jah 
into a proper name too early in the history. A 
third (following Ewald) derives it from T\''\^, a root 
wliich is found in Gen. xxxii. 28, Hos. xii. 4, in the 
sense of " to fight," and explains it as " conten- 
tious" istreitsiichtuj). This last seems to^ be 
etymologically the most probable, and differs from 
the others in giving gi-eat force and dignity to the 
change of name. (See Ges. TVics. vol. iii. p. 13386.) 

Her history is, of course, that of Abraham. She 
came with him from Ur to Haran, from Haran to 
Canaan, and accom))anied him in all the wandeiings 
of his life. Her only independent action is the de- 
mand that Hagar and Ishmael sliould be cast out, 
far from all rivalry with her and Isaac ; a demand, 
symboliailly applied in Gal. iv. 22-31, to the dis- 
])'lacement of the Old Covenant by the New. The 
times, in which she plays the most important 
part in the history, are the times when Abraham 
was sojourning, first in Egypt, then in Gerar, 
and where Sarah shared his deceit, towards Pha- 
)aoh and towards Abimelech. On the first oc- 
c;ision, about the middle of her life, her personal 
beauty is dwelt upon as its cause (Gen. xii. 11-15) ; 
on the second, just before the birth of Isaac, at a 
time when she was old (thirty-seven years before her 
death), but when her vigour had been miracu- 
lously restored, the same cause is alluded to, as 
supposed by Abraham, but not actually stated 
(xx. 9-11). In both cases, especially the last, the 
truthfulness of the history is Seen in the unfavour- 
able contrast, in which the conduct both of Abra- 
ham and Sarah stands to that of Pharaoh and Abime- 
lech. She died at Hebron at the age of 127 years, 
28 years before her husband, and was buried by him 
in the cave of Machpelah. Her burial place, pur- 
ch:ised of Ephron the Hittite, was the only posses- 
sion of Abraham in the land of promise ; it has re- 
mainetl, hallowed in the eyes of Jews, Christians, 
and Mohammedans alike, to the present day ; and in 
it the " shrine of Sarah " is pointed out opposite to 
that of Abraham, with those of Isaac and Kebekah 
on the one side, and those of Jacob and Leah on the 
other (See Stanley's Led. on Jewish Church, app. 
ii. pp. 484-509). 

Her character, like that of Abraham, is no ideal 
type of excellence, but one thoroughly natural, in- 
iijiior to that of her husband, and truly feminine, 
botli in its excellences and its defects. She is the 
mother, even more than the wife. Her natural 
motherly affection is seen in her touching desire 
for children, even from her bondmaid, and in her 
imtorgiving jealousy of that bondmaid, when she 
became a mother ; in her rejoicing over her son 
Isaac, and in the jealousy which resented the slightest 
insult to him, and forbade Ishmael to shai'e his son- 
ship. It makes her cruel to othere as well as tender 
to her own,* and is remarkably contrasted with the 
sacrifice of natural feeling on the part of Abraham 
to God's command in the last case (Gen. xxi. 12). 

* Note the significant remarlc on Isaac's marriage (Gen. 
xxiv. 6<), " Isaac was comforted after his mother's death." 
There is a Jewish tradition, based apparently on the 
mention of Sarah's death almost immediately after the 



To the same chaiacter belong her ironical laughter 
at the promise of a child, long desired, but now 
beyond all hope; her trembling denial of that 
laughter, and her change of it to the laughter ol' 
thankful joy, which she commemorated in the name 
of ls:wc. It is a character deeply and truly atfec- 
tionate, but impulsive, jealous, and imperious in 
its affection. It is referred to in the N. T. as a 
tyjTe of conjugal obedience in 1 Pet. iii. 0, and ius 
one of the types of faith in Heb. xi. 11. [A. U.] 

2. (nib: 2cipa: Sara). Serah the daughter 
of Asher (Num. xxvi. 4G). 

SAEA'I(nb: 2apo: Sardi). The original 

name of Sarah, the wife of Abraham. It is always 
used in the history from Gen. xi. 29 to xvii. 15, 
when it was changed to Sarah at the s;mie time that 
her husband's name from Abram became Abraham, 
and the birth of Isaac was more distinctly foretold. 
The meaning of the name appears to be, as Ewald 
has suggested, "contentious." [Sarah.] 

SAKAI'AS (Sapai'or: om. in Vulg.). 1. Se- 
RAIAH the high-in-iest (1 Esd. v. 5). 

2. ('A^apaios ; Alex. Sapoias : Azarias, Aza- 
rcus.) Sekaiah the father of Ezra (1 Esd. viii. 1 ; 
2 Esd. i. 1). 

SAE'AMEL (2apa/x«V; Alex. 2a/>a^eA ; other 
MSS. 'Atrapa/it'A. : Asaramel). The name of the 
place in which the assembly of the Jews was held 
at which the high-priesthood was conferred upon 
Simon Maccabaeus (1 Mac. xiv. 28). The fact that 
the name is found only in this passage has led to 
the conjecture that it is an imperfect version of a 
word in the original Hebrew or Syriac, from which 
the present Greek text of the Jlaccabees is a trans- 
lation. Some (as Castellio) have treated it as a 
corruption of Jerusalem : but this is inadmissible, 
since it is inconceivable that so well-known a name 
should be corrupted. The other conjectures are 
enumerated by Grimm in the Kurzgef. exegetisches 
Handb. on the passage. A few only need be named 
here, but none seem perfectly satisfactory. All 
appear to adopt the reading Asaramel. 1. Ha- 
hatsar Millo, " the court of Millo," Millo being 
not improbably the citadel of Jerusalem [vol. ii. 
367 a]. This is the conjecture of Grotius, and 
has at least the merit of ingenuity.'' 2. Hahatsar 
Am El, " the court of the people of God, that 
is, the great court of the Temple." This is due 
to Ewald [Gesch. iv. 387), who compares with 
it the well-known Sarheth . Sabanai El, given by 
Eusebius as the title of the Maccabae;m history. 
[See Maccabees, vol. ii. 173 a.] 3. Hasshaar Am 
El, " the gate of the people of God " adopted by 
Winer {Realwb.). 4. Hassar Am El, " prince of 
the people of God," as if not the name of a place, 
but the title of Simon, the " in " having been in- 
serted by puzzled copyists. This is adopted by 
Grimm himself. It has in its favour the tact that 
without it Simon is here styled high-priest only, 
and his second title, " captain and governoi- of tiie 
Jews and priests " (ver. 47), is then omitted in the 
solemn official record — 'the very place where it ought 
to be found. It also seems to be countenanced by 
the Peshito-SjTiac version, which certaiuly omits the 
title of " high-priest," but inserts T abba de Israel, 

sacrifice of Isaac, that the shock of it killed her, and that 
Abraham found her dead on his return from Moriah. 

b Junius and Tremellius render it by in atrio muni- 
lionis. ^ 

4 D 2 

1140 SAKAPH 

" leader of Israel." None of these explanations, how- 
ever, can be regarded as entirely satisfactory. [G.] 

SA'KAPH (fpy : ^apaxj) : Incendens). Men- 
tioned in 1 Chr. iv. 22 amon;^; the descendants of 
Shelah the son of Jadah. Buirington {Geneal. 
i. 179) makes Saraph a descendant of Jolcim, whom 
he regards as the third son of Shelah. In the 
Targuin of R. Joseph, Joash and Saraph are iden- 
tified with Mahlon and Chilion, " who married 
(6V2 ) in Jloab." 

SARCHE'DONUS (taxepSovSs, Sax^pSai' : 

Arcliedonnssar, Achenossar, Sarcedonassar), a col- 
lateral form of the name Ksar-haddon [EsaK-iiad- 
uonJ, occurring Tob. i. 21. The form in A. V. for 
Sacherdunus appears to be an oversight. [B. F. W.] 

SARDE'US ( Zepa\ia9 ; Alex. ZapSaTos : The- 
bedias). Aziza (1 Esd. ix. 28 ; comp. Ezr. x. 27). 

SARDINE, SARDIUS (On'K, odem: <rdp- 
Siov: sardiiis) is, according to the LXX. and 
Josephus (Bell. Jud. v. 5, §7) the correct render- 
ing of the Heb. term, which occurs in Ex. xxviii. 
17 ; xxxix. 10, as the name of the stone which 
occupied the first place in the first row of the high- 
priest's breastplate ; it should, however, be noticed 
that Josephus is not strictly consistent with him- 
self, for in the Antiq. iii. 7, §5, he says that the 
sardonyx was the first stone in the breastplate ; still 
as this latter named mineral is merely another 
variety of agate, to which also the sard or sardius 
belongs, there is no very great discrepancy in the 
statements of the Jewish historian. The odem is 
mentioned by Ezek. (xxviii. 13) as one of the orna- 
ments of the king of Tyre. In Rev. iv. 3, St. John 
declares that he whom he saw sitting on the 
heavenly throne "was to look upon like a jasper 
and a sardine stone." The si \:th foundation of the 
wall of the heavenly Jerusalem was a sardius (Rev. 
xxi. 20). There can scarcely be a doubt that either 
the sard or the sardonvx is the stone denoted by 
odem. The authority of Josephus in all that relates 
to the high-priest's breastplate is of the greatest 
value, for as Braun (Z)e Vest. Sue. Hch. p. 635) has 
remarked, Josephus was not only a Jew but a priest, 
who might have seen the breastplate with the whole 
sacerdotal vestments a hundred times, since in his 
time the Temple was standing ; the Vulgate agrees 
with his nomenclature ; in Jerome s time the breast- 
plate was still to be inspected in the Temple of 
Concord ; hence it will readily be acknowledged that 
this agreement of the two is of great weight. 

The sard, which is a superior variety of agate, 
has long been a favourite stone for the engiaver's 
art; "on this stone," says Mr. King {Antique 
Gems, p. 5), " all the finest works of the most 
celebrated artists are to be 'bund ; and this not 
without good cause, such is its toughness, facility 
of' working, beauty of colour, and the high polish 
of which it is susceptible, and which Pliny states 
that it retains longer than any other gem." Sards 
differ in colour; there is a bright red variety which, 
in Pliny's time, was the most esteemed, and, per- 
haps, the Heb. odem, from a root which means " to 
be led," points to this kind ; there is also a paler or 
honey-coloured variety; but in all sards there is 
.always a shade of yellow mingling with the red 
(see King's Ant. Gems, p. 0). The sardius, ac- 
cording to Pliny (AT. H. xxxvii. 7), derived its 
name from Sardis in Lydia, where it was first 
found ; Babylonian specimens, however, were the 


most esteemed. The Hebrews, in the time of Moses, 

could easily have obtained their sard stones from 
Arabia, in which country they were at the time the 
breastplate was made ; other precious stouus not ac- 
quirable during their wanderings, may have been 
brought with them from the land of their Ijondage 
when " they spoiled the Egyptians." [W. H.J 

SAR'DIS '2ap5eis,. A city situated about two 
miles to the south of the river Hermus, just below 
the range of Tmolus {Bos Daijh), on a spur of 
which its acropolis was built. It was the ancient 
residence of the kings of Lydia. After its conquest 
by Cyrus, the Persians always kept a garrison in the 
citadel, on account of its natural strength, which 
induced Alexander the Great, when it was surren- 
dered to him in the sequel of the battle of the Gra- 
nicus, similarly to occupy it. Sardis was in very 
earlv times, both from the extremely fertile cha- 
racter of the neighbouring region, and from its 
convenient position, a commercial mart of import- 
ance. Chestnuts were first produced in the neigh- 
bourhood, which procured them the name of ^dXavoi 
^apStavoi. The art of dyeing wool is said by Pliny 
to have been invented there ; and at any i ate, Sardis 
was the entrepot of the dyed woollen manufactures, 
of which Phrygia with its vast flocks {-jroAvirpo^U- 
Twrdrrj, Heiod. v. 49) furnishefl the raw material. 
Hence we hear of the <f>0LviKlSes ^apStavai, and 
Sappho speaks of the iroi(ctA.os jtia(r0AT)S AvSlov 
KaKhw ipyov, which was perhaps something like 
the modern Turkish carpets. Some of the woollen 
manufactures, of a peculiarly fine texture, were 
called i|/iAoTa7rtS€s. The hall, through which the 
king of Persia passed from his state apartments to 
the gate where he mounted on his horse, was laid 
with these, and no foot but that of the monarch 
was allowed to tread on them. In the description 
given of the habits of a young Cyprian exquisite of 
great wealth, he is represented as reposing upon a 
bed of which the feet were silver, and upon which 
these \J/iAoTaTri5es SapSiawi were laid as a mattrass. 
Sardis too was the place where the metal electrum 
was procured (Soph. Antiij. 1037); and it was 
thither that the Spartans sent in the 6th century 
B.C. to purchase gold for the purpose of gilding the 
face of the Apollo at Amyclae. This was probably 
furnished by the auriferous sand of the Pactolus, a 
brook which came I'rom Tmolus, and ran through 
the aqora of Sardis by the side of the gi'eat temple 
of Cybebe. But though its gold-washings may have 
been celebrated in early times, the greatness of Sardis 
in its best days was much more due to its general 
commercial impoiiance and its convenience as an 
entrepot. This seems to follow from the state- 
ment, that not only silver and gold coins were 
there first minted, but there also the class of /co- 
TTTjAot (stationary traders as contradistinguished 
from the efiTropoi, or travelling merchants) first 
arose. It was also, at any rate between the fall of 
the Lydian and that of the Persian dynasty, a 

Sardis recovered the privilege of municipal go- 
vernment (and, as was alleged several centuries 
afterwards,' the right of a sanctuary) upon its sur- 
render to Alexander the Great, but its fortunes for 
the next three hundred years are very obscure. It 
chancred hands more than once in the contests 
between the dynasties which arose after the death 
of Alexander. " In the year 214 n.C, it was taken 
and sacked by the army of Antiochus the Great, who 
besieged his cousin Achaeus in it for twoycais before 
succeeding, as he at last did through treachery, in 


obtaining poascssion of the person of tiie latter. 
After the ruin of Antiochus's foitunes, it p;issed, 
witli the rest of Asia on that side of Taurus, under 
the dominion of the kings of I'ergamus, whose in- 
terests led them to divert the course of traffic 
between Asia and Europe away from Sardis. Its 
productive soil must always have continued a source 
of wealth ; but its importance as a central mart 
appeals to have diminished from the time of the 
mvasioii of Asia by Alexander. Of the few inscrip- 
tions wliich have been discovered, all, or nearly all, 
belong to the time of the Roman empire. Yet there 
still exist consideraljle remains of the earlier days. 
The massive temple of Cybebe still bears witness in 
its fragmentary I'cmains to the wealth and archi- 
tectural skill of the people that raised it. Mr. 
Cockerell, who visited it in 1812, found two columns 
standing with their architiave, the stone of which 
stretched in a single block tiom the centre of one to 
that of the other. This stone, although it was not 
the largest of the architrave, he calculates must 



have weighed 25 tons. The diameters of the co- 
lumns supporting it are 6 feet 4J inches at about 
3.5 feet below the capital. The present soil (appa- 
rently formed by the crumbling away of the hill 
which backs the temple on its eastern sidej is moie 
than 25 feet above the pavement. Such propor- 
tions are not inferior to those of the columns in the 
Heraeum at Samos, which divides, in the estimation 
of Herodotus, with the Artemisium at Ephesus, the 
palm of pre-eminence among all the works of Greek 
art. And as regards the details, " the capitals ap- 
peared," to Mr. Cockercll, " to surpass any specimen 
of the Ionic he had seen in perfection of design and 
execution." On the north side of the acropolis, 
overlooking the valley of the Hermus, is a theatie 
near 400 feet in diameter, attached to a stadium of 
about 1000. This probably was elected after the 
restoration of Sardis by Alexander. In the attack 
of Sardis by Antiochus, descril^ed by I'olybius (vii. 
15-18;, it constituted one of the chief points on 
which, after entering the city, the assaulting force 

wns directed. The temple belongs to the era of the 
l.ydian dynasty, and is nearly contemporaneous 
with the temple of Zeus Panhellenius in Aegina, 
and that of Here in Samos. To the s;ime date may 
be assigned the " Valley of Sweets " lyXvKvs 0:7- 
Ku>v),a. pleasure ground, the fame of which Poly- 
crates endeavoured to rival by the so-called Laura 
at Samos. 

The modern name of the ruins at Sardis is Scft- 
Kalcssi. Travellers describe the appearance of the 
locality on approaching it from the N.W. as that 
of complete solitude. The Pactolus is a mere thread 
of water, all but evanescent in summer time. The 
Wadis-tchai f Hei-mus), in the neighbourhood of the 
town, is between 50 and 60 yards wide, and nearly 
.3 feet deep, but its waters are turbid and disagree- 
able, and are not only avoided ;is unfit for drinking, 
but have the local reputation of generating the fever 
which is the scourge of the neighbouring plains. 

In the tinie of the emperor Tiberius, Sai-dis was 

desolated by an earthquake, together with eleven, or 
as Eusebius says twelve, other imporbuit cities of 
Asia. The whole face of the country is said to have 
been changed by this convulsion. In the case of 
Sardis the calamity was increased by a pestilential 
fever which followed ; and so much compassion was 
in consequence excited for the city at Rome, that its 
tribute was remitted for five years, and it received 
a benefaction from the privy purse of the emperor. 
This was in the year 17 A.D. Nine years after- 
wards the Sardians are found among the competitors 
for the honour of erecting, as representatives ol 
the Asiatic cities, a temple to their benefactor. 
[Smyrna.] On this ocuision they plead, not only 
their ancient services to Rome in the time of the 
Macedonian war, but their well-watered country, 
their climate, and the richness of the neighbouring 
soil : there is no allusion, however, to the important 
manufactures and the commerce of the early times. 
In file time of Pliiiv it was included in tlie same 



conventus juridicus with Philadelj)bia, with the 
Cadueni, a Macedouiau colony in the neighbourhood, 
with some settlements of the old JIaeonian popula- 
tion, and a few other towns of less note. These 
Maeonians still continued to call Sardis by its ancient 
name Hydfe, which it bore in the time of Omphale. 

The only passage in which Sardis is mentioned 
in the Bilale, is Rev. iii. 1-6. There is nothing 
in it which appears to have any special reference 
to the peculiar circumstances of the city, or to any- 
thing else than the moral and spiiitual condition of 
the Christian community existing there. This latter 
was probably, in its secular relations, pretty nearly 
identical with that at Philadelphia. 

(Athenaeus ii. p. 48, vi. p. 231, xii. p. 514, 
.540 ; Arrian, i. 17 ; Pliny, N. H. v. 29, xv. 23; 
Stephanas Byz. v. "TStj ; Pausanias, iii. 9, 5 ; 
Diodorus Sic. xx. 107 ; Scholiast, Aristoph. Pac. 
1174; Boeckh, Iiiscriptiones Graecae, Nos. 3451- 
3472 ; Herodotus, i. 69, 94, iii. 48, viii. 105 ; 
Strabo, xiii. §5 ; Tacitus, Annnl. ii. 47, iii. 63, iv. 55 ; 
Cockerell, in Leake's Asia Minor, p. 343 ; Arundell, 
Discoveries in Asia Minor, i. pp. 26-28 ; Tchi- 
hatchetf, Asie Mineure, pp. 232-242.) [J. W. B.] 

SAR'DITES, THE O'l'lDn : b SapeSi': Sa- 

reditac). The descendants of Sered the son of Zebulon 
(Num. xxvi. 26). 

SARDONYX (trapSoj/ul : sardonyx) is men- 
tioned in the N. T. once only, viz., in liev. xxi. 20, 
as the stone which garnished the fifth foundation of 
the wall of the heavenly Jerusalem. " By sai-donyx," 
says Pliny (iV. H. xxxvii. 6), who describes several 
varieties, " was formerly understood, as its name 
implies, a sard with a white ground beneath it, 
like the flesh under the finger-nail." The sardonyx 
consists of " a white opaque layer, superimposed 
upon a red transparent sti-atum of the true red 
sard" {Antique Geins, p. 9); it is, like the sard, 
merely a variety of agate, and is frequently em- 
ploved by engravers for the purposes of a signet- 
ring. [W. H.] 

SARE'A (Sarea). One of the five scribes " ready 
to write swiftly " whom Esdras was commanded to 
take (2 Esd. xiv. 24). 

SAREP'TA (SapeTTTo: Sarepta: Syriac, Tsar- 
path). The Greek form of the name which in the 
Hebrew text of the 0. T. appears as Zahephath. 
The place is designated by the same formula on its 
single occurrence in the N. T. (Luke iv. 20) that 
it is when first mentioned in the LXX. version of 
1 K. xvii. 9, " Sarepta of Sidonia." [G.j 

SAR'GON {pjl"}D: 'kpva: Sargon) was one 
of the greatest of the Assyrian kings. His name is 
read in the native inscriptions as Sargina, while a 
town which he built and called after himself (now 
lihorsabad) was known as Sarghun to the Arabian 
geographers. He is mentioned by name only once 
in Scripture (Is. xx. 1), and then not in an historical 
book, which formerly led historians and critics to 
suspect that he was not really a king distinct from 
ti lose mentioned in Kings and Chronicles, but rather 
one of those kings under another name. N'itringa, 
Offerhaus, Eichhorn, and Hupfeld identified him 
with Shalmaueser; Grotius, Lowth, and Keil with 
Sennacherib ; Perizonius, Kalinsky, and Michaelis 

* There is a peculiarity of phraseology in 2 K. xviii. 
9, 10, which perhaps nidicates a knowledge on the part 
ol the writer that .Shahnaneser was not tlic actual captor. 


witli Esarliaddon. All these conjectures are now 
shown to be wrong by the Assyrian inscriptions, 
which prove Sargou to have been distinct and 
different from the several monarchs named, and fix 
his place in the list — where it had been already as- 
signed by Piosenmiiller, Gesenius, Ewald, and Winer 
— between Shalmaueser and Sennacherib. He was 
certainly Sennacherib's father, and tliere is no reason 
to doubt that he was his immediate predecessor. 
He ascended the throne of Assyria, as we gather 
fi'om his annals, in the same year that Merodach- 
Baladan ascended the throne of Babylon, which, 
according to Ptolemy's Canon, was B.C. 721. He 
seems to have been an usurper, and not of royal 
birth, for in his inscriptions he carefully avoids all 
mention of his father. It hits been conjectured that 
he took advantage of Shalmanesev's absence at the 
protracted siege of Samaria (2 K. xvii. 5) to eflisct 
a revolution at the seat of government, by which 
that king was deposed, and he himself substituted 
in his room. [Shalmaneser.] It is remarkable 
that Sargon claims the conquest of Samaria, which 
the narrative in Kings appears to assign to his 
predecessor. He places the e\-ent in his first year, 
before any of his other expeditions. Perhaps, there- 
fore, he is the " king of Assyria" intended in 2 K. 
xvii. 6 and xviii. 11, who is not said to be Shal- 
maneser, though we might naturally suppose so from 
no otlier name being mentioned.* Or perhaps he 
claimed the conquest as his own, though Shalmaneser 
really accomplished it, because the capture of the 
city occuiTed after he had been acknowledged king 
in the Assyrian capital. At any rate, to him belongs 
the settlement of the Samaritans (27,280 families, 
according to his own statement) in Halah, and on 
the Habor (Khabonr), the river of Gozan, and (at 
a later period probably) in the cities of the Jledes. 

Sargon was undoubtedly a great and successful 
warrior. In his annals, which cover a space of 
fifteen years ^from B.C. 721 to B.C. 706), he gives 
an account of his warlike expeditions against Baby- 
lonia and Susiana on the south, Jledia on the east, 
Armenia and Cappadocia towards the north, Syria, 
Palestine, Arabia, and Egj'pt towards the west and 
the south-west. In Babylonia he deposed Merodach- 
Baladan, and established a viceroy ; in Jledia he 
built a number of cities, which he peopled with 
captives from other quarters ; in Armenia and the 
neighbouring countries he gained many victories ; 
while in the far west he reduced Philistia, penetrated 
deep into the Arabian peninsula, and forced Egypt 
to submit to his arms and consent to the payment 
of a tribute. In this last direction he seems to 
have waged three wars — one in his second year 
(B.C. 720), for the possession of Gaza; another in 
his sixth year (B.C. 715), when Egypt itself was 
the object of attack ; and a third in his ninth (B.C. 
712), when the special subject of contention was 
Ashdod, which Sargon took by one of his generals. 
This is the event which causes the mention of Sai- 
gon's name in Scripture. Isaiah was instructed at 
the time of this expedition to " put otf his shoe, and 
go naked and barefoot," for a sign that " the king 
of Assyria should lend away the Egyptians pri- 
soners, and the Ethiojiians ca))tives, young and old, 
naked and barefoot, to the shame of Egyi)t " (Is. 
XX. 2-4). We may gather from this, either that 
Ethiopians and Egyptians fonned part of the garri- 

" In the fourth yearof Hezekiah," he says, "Shalmaneser 
king (if Assyria came up against Samaria and besieged it : 
and at the end of tlinv years, they took it." 


son of Ashdod and were captured with the city, 
or tliat the attack on the Philistine town was ac- 
companied by an invasion of Egypt itself, which 
was disastrous to the Kgyptians. The year of the 
atbick, being B.C. 712, would fall into the reign 
of the first Ethio])ian king, Sabaco I., who probably 
conquered Egypt in B.C. 714 (Rawlinson's Hero- 
dotus, i. .'380, note 7, 2nd ed.), and it is in agree- 
ment with this Sargon speaks of Egypt as being at 
this time subject to Meroe. Besides these expe- 
ditions of Sargon, his monuments mention that he 
took Tyre, and received tribute from the Greeks of 
Cyprus, against whom thei-e is some reason to think 
that he conducted an attack in person.'" 

It is not as a wariior only tliat Sargon deserves 
.special mention among the Assyrian kings. He w;is 
also the builder of useful works and of one of the 
most magnificent of the Assyrian palaces. He 
relates that he thoi-oughly repaired the walls of 
Nineveh, which he seems to have elevated from a 
provincial city of some importance to the first posi- 
tion in the empire ; and adds further, that in its 
neighbourhood he constructed the palace and town 
,which he made his principal residence. This was 
the city now known as " the French Nineveh," or 
" Khorsabad," from which the valuable series of 
Assyrian monuments at present in the Louvre is 
derived almost entirely. Traces of Sargon's buildings 
have been found also at Nimrud and Koyunjik ; and 
his time is marked by a considerable advance in the 
useful and ornamental arts, which seem to have 
profited by the conne.\ion which he established be- 
tween Assyria and Egypt. He probably reigned 
nineteen years, from B.C. 721 to B.C. 702, when 
he left the throne to his son, the celebrateil Sen- 
nacherib. [G. R.] 

SA'EID (T'nb' : 'Ea-e5€K7a,Aas SeSSoi^ic ; Alex. 

2ap9i5, 2api5 : Sarid). A chief landmark of the 
territory of Zebulun, apparently the pivot of the 
western and southern boundaries (Josh. xix. 10, 12). 
All that can be gathered of its position is that it 
lay to the west of Chisloth-Tabor. It was unknown 
to Eusebius and Jerome, and no trace of it seems to 
have been found by any traveller since their day 
{Onoin. " Sarith "). 

The ancient Syriac version, in each case, reads 
Asdod. This may be only from the inteichange, 
so frequent in this version, of R and I). At any 
rate, the Ashdod of the Philistines cannot be in- 
tended. [G.] 

SA'RON {rhv '2,ap5)va ; in some MSS. acrira- 
puva, i. e. piCJTI : Sarona). The district in which 

Lydda stood (Acts ix. 35 only); the Sharon of 
the O. T. The absence of the article from Lydda, 
and its presence before Saron, is noticeable, and 
shows that the name denotes a district — as in 
" The Shefelah," and in our own " The Weald," 
" The Downs." [G.] 

SARO'THIE (:Sapa>ei ; Alex. 2apa)0te : Ca- 
7-oneth). "The sons of Sarothie" are among the 
sons of the servants of Solomon who retui'ned with 
Zorobabel, according to the list in 1 Esd. v. 34. 
Theie is nothing corresponding to it in the Hebrew. 

SAE'SECHIM (D^SpnK': Sarsachim). One 
of the generals of Nebuchadnezzar's army at the 



taking of Jerusalem (Jer. xxxix. 3). He appears 
to have held the office of chief eunuch, for Rjib- 
saris is probably a title and not a proper name. 
In Jer. xxxix. 13 Nebushasban is called Rab-saris, 
" chief eunuch," and the question arises whether 
Nebushasban and Sarscchim may not be names of 
the same person. In the LXX., verses 3 and l.'-i 
are mixed up together, and so hopelessly corrupt 
that it is impo.ssible to infer anything from their 
reading of NajSoutraxap for Sarsechim. In Gese- 
nius' Thesaurus it is conjectured that Sarsecliim 
and Rab-saris may be identical, and both titles of 
the same office. 

SA'RUCH {"Zapovx ■ Sarug). Serug the son 
of Reu (Luke iii. 35). 

SA'TAN. The word itself, the Hebrew ]Db, 
is simply an "adversary," and is so used in 1 Sam. 
xxix. 4 ; 2 Sam. xix. 22; 1 K. v. 4 (LXX. eVi- 
0ov\os) ; in 1 K. si. 25 (LXX. avriK^iixevos) ; in 
Num. xxii. 22, 32, and Ps. cix. 6 (LXX. SidySoAoy 
and cognate words) ; in 1 K. xi. 14, 23 (LXX. 
ffaT(iv). This original sense is still found in our 
Lord's application of the name to St. Peter in Matt. 
xvi. 23. It is used as a proper name or title only 
four times in the 0. T., viz. (with the article) in 
Job i. 6, 12, ii. 1, Zech. iii. 1, and (without the 
article) in 1 Chr. xxi. 1. In each case the LXX. 
has Sid&oXos, and the Vulgate Satan. In the N. T. 
the word is (raravas, followed by the Vulgate 
Satanas, except in 2 Cor. xii. 7, where ffaTav is 
used. It is found in twenty-five places (exclusive 
of parallel passages), and the corresponding word 
SiojSoAos in about the same number. The title 
o apxcDV Tov kSct/xuv tovtov is used three times ; 
6 -novTipSs is used certainl}' six times, probably more 
frequently, and b Tretpd^aiv twice. 

It is with the scriptural revelation on the subject 
that we are here concerned, and it is clear, from 
this simple enumeration of passages, that it is to be 
sought in the New, rather than in the Old Testament. 

It divides itself naturally into the consideration 
of his existence, his nature, and his power and 

(A.) His Existence. — It would be a waste of 
time to prove, that, in various degrees of clearness, 
the personal existence of a Spirit of Evil is revealed 
again and again in Scripture. Every qualify, everv 
action, which can indicate personality, is attributed 
to him in language which cannot be explained away. 
It is not difficult to see why it should be thus re- 
vealed. It is obvious, that the fact of his existence 
is of spiritual importance, and it is also clear, from 
the nature of the case, that it could not be discovered, 
although it might be suspected, by human reason. 
It is in the power of that reason to test any suj)- 
posed manifestations of supernatural power, and 
any asserted principles of Divine action, which fall 
within its sphere of experience (" the earthly things" 
of John iii. 12) ; it may by such examination satisfy 
itself of the truth and divinity of a Peison or a 
book; but, having done this, it must then accept 
and understand, without being able to test or to 
explain, the disclosures of this Divine aathority 
upon subjects beyond this world (the "heavenly 
things," of which it is said that none can see or 
disclose them, save the " Son of Man who is in 
Heaven "). 

b 'I'he statue of Sargon, now in the Berlin Museum, was tlie expedition in person, 
found at Id;ilium in Cyprus. It is not very liliely tliat llie j "^ Tliis Imiljarous word is obtained by joining to Sarid 
kings statue would have been set up unless he had made the first word of the following verse, nSyi. 



It is true, that human thoiiglit can assert an 
a priori probability or improbability in such state- 
ments made, based on the perception of a greater or 
less degree of accordance in principle between tlie 
things seen and the things unseen, between the 
effects, which are visible, and the causes, which are 
revealed from the regions of mystery. But even 
this power of weighing probability is applicable 
rather to the fact and tendency, than to the method, 
of supernatural action. This is true even of natural 
action beyond the sphere of human oteervation. In 
the discussion of the Plurality of Worlds, for e.x- 
ample, it may be asserted without doubt, that in 
all the orbs of the univeise the Divine power, wis- 
dom, and goodness must be exercised ; but the in- 
ference that the method of their exercise is found 
there, as here, in the creation of sentient and rational 
beings, is one at best of but moderate probability. 
Still more is this the case in the spiritual world. 
Whatever supernatnral orders of beings may exist, 
we can conclude that in their case, as in ours, the 
Divine government must be carried on by the union 
of individual freedom of action with the overruling 
power of God, and must tend finally to that good 
which is His central attribute. But beyond this 
we can assert nothing to be certain, and can scarcely 
even say of any part of the method of this govern- 
ment, whether it is antecedently probable or im- 

Thus, on our present subject, man can ascertain 
by observation the existence of evil, that is, of facts 
and thoughts contrary to the standard which con- 
science asserts to be the true one, bringing with 
them suffering and misery as their inevitable results. 
If he attempts to trace them to their causes, he 
finds them to arise, for each individual, partly from 
the power of certain internal impulses which act 
upon the will, partly from the influence of external 
circumstances. These circumstances themselves arise, 
either fiom the laws of nature and society, or by 
the deliberate action of other men. He can con- 
clude with certainty, that both series of causes must 
exist by the permission of God, and must finally be 
overrulefl to His will. But whether there exists 
any superhuman but subordinate cause of the cir- 
cumstances, and whether there be any similar in- 
fluence acting in the origination of the impulses 
which move the will, this is a question which he 
cannot answer with certainty. Analogy from the 
obseiTation of the only ultimate cause which he can 
discover in the visible world, viz. the free action of 
a personal will, may lead him, and generally has 
led him, to conjecture in the aflirmative, but still 
the inquiry remains unanswered by authority. 

The tendency of the mind in its inquiry is gene- 
rally towards one or other of two extremes. The first 
is to consider evil as a negative imperfection, aris- 
ing, in some unknown and inexplicable wav, from the 
nature of matter, or from some disturbing influences 
which limit the action of goodness on earth ; in 
fact, to ignore as much of evil as possible, and to 
decline to retiir the resiiluum to any positive cause 
at all. The other is the old Persian or Manichaean 
hypothesis, which traces the existence of evil to a 
rival Creator, not subordinate to the Creator of 
Good, though perhaps inferior to Him in powei-, 
and destined to be overcome by Him at last. Be- 

• See Wlsd. ii. 24, tt>96v(f Si SiaP6\ov BayarcK eiariXOev 


•> For this reason, if for no other, it seems impossible to 
icccpt the interpretation of " Axazel," given by Spencer, 


tween these two extremes the mind varied, through 
many gradations of thought and countless fomis of 
superstition. Each hypothesis had its argimients 
of probability against the other. The fii'st laboured 
under the ditficulty of being insutflcient as an 
account of the anomalous facts, and indeterminate 
in its account of the disturbing causes ; the second 
sinned against that belief in the Unity of God and 
the natural supremacy of goodness, which is sup- 
ported by the deepest instincts of the heart. But 
both were laid in a sphere beyond human cogni- 
zance ; neither could be proved or disproved with 

The Revelation of Sciipture, speaking with au- 
thority, meets the. truth, and removes the error, 
inherent in both these hvpotheses. It asseits in 
the strongest terms the perfect supi-emacy of God, 
so that under His permission alone, and for His 
inscrutable purposes, evil is allowed to exist (see 
for example Prov. xvi. 4; Is. xlv. 7 ; Am. iii. 6; 
comp. Rom. ix. 22, 23). It regards this evil as 
an anomaly and corruption, to be taken away by a 
new manifestation of Divine Love in the Incarnation 
and Atonement. The conquest of it began virtually 
in God's ordinance after the P'all itself, was etTected 
actually on the Cross, and shall be perfected in its 
results at the Judgment Day. Still Scripture re- 
cognises the existence of evil in the world, not only 
as felt in outward circumstances (-'the world"), 
and as inborn in the soul of man (''the flesh"), 
but also as proceeding fiom the influence of an 
Evil Spirit, exercising that mysterious power ot' 
fi'ee will, which God's rational creatures possess, to 
rebel against Him, and to draw others into the 
same rebellion (" the devil "). 

In accordance with the " economy " and pro- 
gressiveuess of God's revelation, the existence of 
Satan is but gradually revealed. In the first en- 
trance of evil into the world, the temptation is re- 
ferred only to the serpent. It is true that the 
whole narrative, and especially the spiritual nature 
of the temptation (" to be as gods"), which was 
united to the sensual motive, would force on any 
thoughtful reader* the conclusion that something 
more than a mere animal agency was at work ; but 
tlie time was not then come to reveal, what after- 
wards was revealed, that " he who sinneth is of 
the devil" (1 John iii. 8), that " the old serpent" 
of Genesis was " called the devil and Satan, who 
deceiveth the whole world" (Rev. xii. 9, xx. 2.3). 

Throughout the whole peiiod of the patriarchal 
and Jewish dispensation, this vague and imperfect 
revelation of the Source of Evil alone was given. 
The Source of all Good is set forth in all His su- 
preme and unapproachable Jlajesty; evil is known 
negatively as the falling away from Him ; and the 
"vanity" of idols, rather than any positive evil 
influence, is represented as the opposite to His 
reality and goodness. The Law gives the " know- 
ledge of sin" in the soul, without referring to any 
external influence of evil to foster it; it denounces 
idolatry, without even hinting, what the N. T. 
declares plainly, that such evil implied a " p6wer 
of Satan."'' 

The Book of Job stands, in any case, alone 
(whether we refer it to an early or a later peiiod) 
on the basis of " natural religion," apart from the 

Henffstenberg, and others, in I^ev. xvi. 8, as a reference to 
the Spirit of Kvil. .Such a reference would not only stand 
alone, but would be entirely inconsistent with tlie whole 
tenor of tlie Mosaic lovclation. See Da v or Atonement. 


gi'adual and orderly evolutions of fhe Mosaic reve- 
lation. Jn it, for the first time, we find a distinct 
mention of " Sat;ui," " the adversary " of Job. 
liut it is important to remark the emphatic stress 
laid on his subordinate position, on the absence of 
all but delegated power, of all teiror, and all 
grandeur in his character. He comes among the 
" sons of God" to present himself before the Lord ; 
his malice and envy are peimitted to have scope, 
in accusation or in action, only for God's own pur- 
])Oses; and it is especially remarliable that no power 
of spiritual infiueuce, but only a power over out- 
ward circumstances, is attributeil to him. All this 
is widely dilTerent from the clear and terrible reve- 
lations of the N. T. 

The Captivity brought the Israelites face to face 
with the great dualism of the Persian mythology, 
the conflict of Orniuzd with Ahriman, the co- 
ordinate Spirit of Evil. In the books written 
after the Cajitivity we have again the name of 
"Satan" twice mentioned ; but it is confessed by 
all that the Satan of Scripture bears no resemblance 
to the Persian Ahriman. His subordination and 
inferiorit)' are as strongly marked as ever. In 
1 Chr. xxi. 1, where the name occure without the 
article (" an adversaiy," not " the adveisary "), 
the comparison with 2 Sam. xxiv. 1 shows dis- 
tinctly that, in the temptation of David, Satan's 
malice was overruled to work out the " anger of 
the Loid " against Israel. In Zech. iii. 1, 2, 
" Satan" is o di/TiSi/coy (as in 1 Pet. v. 8), the 
accuser of .Joshua before the throne of God, re- 
buked and put to silence by Him (comp, Ps. cix. 6j. 
In the case, as of the good angels, so also of the 
Evil One, the presence of fable and idolatry gave 
cause to the manifestation of the truth. [Angels, 
p. 70 a.] It would have been impossible to guard 
the Israelites more distinctly from the fascination 
of the great dualistic theory of their conquerors. 

It is perhaps not difficult to conjecture, that the 
reason of this reserve as to the disclosure of the ex- 
istence and nature of Satan is to be found in the in- 
veterate tendency of the Israelites to idolatry, an 
idolatry based as usual, in great degi'ee, on the sup- 
posed power of their false gods to inflict evil. The 
existence of evil spirits is suggested to them in the 
stern prohibition and punishment of witchcrafl 
(Ex. xxii. 18 ; Dent, xviii. 10), and in the narra- 
tive of the possession of men by an " evil " or 
" lying spirit from the Lord" (1 Sam. xvi, 14; 
1 K. xxii. 22) ; the tendency to seek their aid is 
shown by the rebukes of the prophets (Is. viii. 
19, &c.). But this tendency would have been in- 
creased tenfold by the revelation of the existence of 
the great enemy, concentrating round himself all 
the powers of evil and enmity against God. There- 
fore, it would seem, the revelation of the " strong 
man armed " was withheld until " the stronger 
than he" should be made manifest. 

For in the New Test, this reserve suddenly 
vanishes. In the interval between the Oid and 
New Test, the Jewish mind had pondered on the 
scanty revelations already given of evil spiritual 
influence. r>ut the Apocryphal Books (as, for ex- 
ample, Tobit and Judith), while dwelling on 
"demons" {^aip.6via), have no notice of Satan. 
The same may be observed of Josephus. The only 
instance to the contrary is the reference already 
made to VVisd. ii. 24. It is to be noticed also that 
the Targums often introduce the name of Satan 
into the descriptions of sin and temptation found 
in the 0. T., as for example in Ex. .ixxii. 19, in 


1 145 

connexion with the worship of the golden calf 
(comp. the tradition as to the body of Moses, Dent. 
.\xxiv. 5, (5 ; Jude 9, Michael). But, while a 
mass of fable and superstition grew up on fhe 
general subject of evil spiritual influence, still the 
existence and nature ot Satan remained in tlie baik- 
ground, felt, but not understood. 

The N. T. first brings it plainly forwai d. From 
the beginning of the Gospel, when he appears as the 
personal tempter of our Lord, through all the 
Gospels, Epistles, and Apocalypse, it is asserted or 
implied, again and again, as a familiar and im- 
portant truth. To refer this to mere "accommo- 
dation" of the language, of the Lord and His 
Apostles to the ordinary Jewish belief, is to contra- 
dict facts, and evade the meaning of words. The 
subject is not one on which error could be toleiated 
as unimportant ; but one important, practical, and 
even awful. The language used respecting it is 
either truth or falsehood ; and unless we impute 
error or deceit to the writers of the N. T., we must 
receive the doctrine of the existence of Satan as a 
certain doctrine of Revelation. Without dwelling 
on other passages, the plain, solemn, and unmeta- 
phorical words of John viii. 44, must be sufficient: 
" Ye are of your father the devil. ... He was a 
murderer from the beginning, and abides ('icrr-qKev) 
not in the truth. . . . When he speaketh a lie, he 
speiiketh of his own, for he is a liar and the father 
of it." On this subject, see Demoniacs, vol. i. 
p. 425 6. 

(B.) His Nature. — Of the nature and original 
state of Satan, little is revealed in Scripture. Most 
of the common notions on the subject are drawn 
from mere trailition, popularized in England by 
Milton, but without even a vestige of Scriptural 
authority. He is spoken of as a "spirit'' in Eph. 
ii. 2, as the prince or ruler of the "demons" 
iSaifiSvia) in Matt. xii. 24-26, and as having 
" angels " subject to him in Matt. xxv. 41 ; Rev. 
xii. 7, 9. The whole description of his power 
implies spiritual nature and spiritual influence. 
We conclude therefore that he was of angelic nature 
[Angels], a rational and spiritual creature, super- 
human in power, wisdom, and energy ; and not 
only so, but an aichangel, one of the " princes " of 
heaven. We cannot, of course, conceive that any- 
thing essentially and originally evil was cre;ited by 
God. We find by experience, that the will of a free 
and rational cieature can, by His permission, oppose 
His will ; that the veiy conception of freedom 
implies capacity of temptation : and that every 
sin, unless arrested by God's fresh gift of grace, 
strengtliens the hold of evil on the spirit, till it 
may fall into the hopeless state of reprobation. We 
can only conjecture, therefore, that Satan is a fallen 
angel, who once liad a time of probation, but whose 
condemnation is now irrevocably fixed. 

But of the time, cause, and manner of his fall. 
Scripture tells us scarcely anything. It limits its 
disclosures, as always, to that which wo need to 
know. The passage on which all the fabric of tra- 
dition and poetry has been raised is Kev. xii. 7, 9, 
which speaks of" Michael and his angels " as " fight- 
ing against the dragon and his angels," till the 
" great dragon, called the devil and Satan" was 
" ciist out into the earth, and his angels cast out 
with him." Whatever be the meaning of this pas- 
sage, it is certain that it cannot refer to the oiiginal 
fall of Satan. The only other passage which refers 
to the fall of the angels is 2 Pet. ii. 4, " God spared 
not the angels, when they had sinned, but having 



cast them into hell, delivered fliem to chains of 
darkness ((TeipaTs ^6<pov Taprapwaas TrapeSaiKiv), 
resented unto judgment," with the parallel passage 
in Jude 6, '• Angels, who kept not their first estate 
(tjji' eauTcSr apxv"), but left their own habita- 
tion, he hath reserved iu everlasting chains under 
darkness unto the judgment of the Great Day." 
Here again the passage is mysterious ;"= but it seems 
hardly possible to consider Satan as one of these ; 
for they are in chains and guarded (reTrjpTjfiivovs) 
till the Great Day ; he is permitted still to go 
about as the Tempter and the Adversary, until his 
appointed time be come. 

Setting these passages aside, wc have still to con- 
sider the declaration of our Lord in Luke x. 18, 
" I beheld {iOeiopovv) Satan, as lightning, fall 
from heaven." This may refer to the fact of liis 
original fall (although the use of the imperfect 
tense, and the force of the context, rather refer it 
figui'atively to the triumph of the disciples over the 
evil spirits) ; but, in any case, it tells nothing of its 
cause or method. There is also the passage alieady 
quoted (John vtii. 44), in which our Lord declares 
of him, that "he was a murderer from the be- 
ginning," that "he stands not (eVrrj/ce) in the 
truth, because thei'e is no truth in him," " that he 
is a liar and the father of it." But here it seems 
likely the words an apxv^ refer to the beginning 
of his action upon man ; perhaps the allusion is 
to his temptation of Cain to be the first murderer, 
an allusion explicitly made in a similar passage in 
1 John iii. 9-12. The word ecTr/zce (wrongly ren- 
dered " abode " in A. V.), and the rest of the verse, 
I'efei- to pi-esent time. The passage therefore throws 
little or no light on the cause and method of his fall. 

Perhaps the only one, which has any value, is 
1 Tim. iii. 6, " lest being lifted up by jiride he fall 
into the condemnation" [KpifJ-a) " of the devil." It 
is concluded from this, that pride was the cause of 
the devil's condemnation. The infeience is a pro- 
bable one ; it is strengthened by the only analogy 
within our reach, that of the fall of man, in which 
the spiritual temptation of pride, the desire " to be 
as gods," was the subtlest and most deadly temp- 
tation. Still it is but an inference ; it camiot be 
regarded as a matter of certain Revelation. 

But, while these pomts are passed by almost in 
silence (a silence which rebukes the irreverent 
exercise of imagination on the subject), Scripture 
describes to us distinctly the moral nature of the 
Evil One. This is no matter of barren speculation 
to those, who by yielding to evil may become the 
" children of Satan," instead of " children of God." 
The ideal of goodness is made up of the three great 
raoial attributes of God, Love, Truth, and Purity 
or Holiness; combined with that spirit, which is the 
natural temper of a finite and dependent cieature, 
the spirit of Faith. We find, accordingly, that the 
opposites to these qualities are dwelt upon as the 
characteristics of the devil. In .John viii. 44, com- 
pared with 1 John iii. 10-15, we have hatred and 
falsehood ; in the consfcuit mention of the " un- 
clean " spirits, of which he is the chief, we find im- 
purity ; fiom 1 Tim. iii. 6, and the narrative of the 
Temptation, we trace the spirit of pride. These 
are especially the " sins of the devil ;" in them wo 
trace the essence of moral evil, and the features of 
the reprobate mind. Add to this a spirit of rert- 
less activity, a power of craft, and an intense desire 

"= It is referred by some to Gen. vi. 2, where many MSS. 
of the LXX. have ayyeXoi ©«oS for "sons of God;" 


to spread coiTuption, and with it eternal death, and 
we have the portraiture of the Spirit of Evil as 
Scripture has drawn it plainly before our eyes. 

(C.) His Power axd Action. — Both these 
points, being intimately connected with our own 
life and salvation, are treated with a distinctness and 
fulness remarkably contrasted with the obscurity 
of the previous subject. 

The power of Satan over the soul is represented 
as exercised, either directly, or by his instruments. 
His direct influence over the soul is simply that of 
a powerful and evil nature on those, in whom lurks 
the geiTQ of the same evil, differing from the in- 
fluence exei'cised by a wicked man, in degree rather 
than in kind ; but it has the power of acting by 
suggestion of thoughts, without the medium of 
actions or words — a power which is only in very 
slight degree exercised by men upon each other. 
This influence is spoken of in Scripture in the 
strongest terms, as a real external influence, corre- 
lative to, but not to be confounded with, the 
existence of evil within. In the parable of the 
sower (Matt. xiii. 19), it is i-epresented as a ne- 
gative influence, taking away the action of the 
Word of God for good ; in that of the wheat and 
the tares (JIatt. xiii. 39), as a jiositive influence for 
evil, introducing wickedness into the world. St. 
Paul does not hesitate to represent it as a power, 
permitted to dispute the world with the power of 
God ; for he declares to Agrippa that his mission 
was " to turn men fiom darkness to light, and from 
the power (i^ovaias) of Satan unto God," and re- 
presents the excommunication, which cuts men off 
from the grace of Christ in His Church, as a " de- 
liverance of them unto Satan " (1 Cor. V. 5; 1 Tim. 
i. 20). 'i"he same truth is conveyed, though in a 
bolder and moi-e startling form, in the Epistles to 
the Churches of the Apocalypse, where the body of 
the unbelieving Jews is called a " synagogue of 
Satan " (Rev. ii. 9, iii. 9), where the secrets of false 
doctrine are called " the depths of Satan" (ii. 24), 
and the '-throne" and "habitation" of Satan are 
said to be set up in opposition to the Church of 
Christ. Another and even more i-emarkable expres- 
sion of the same idea is found in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, where the death of Christ is spoken of as 
intended to baffle i Karapyeiu) " him, that hath the 
power {rh Kpdros) of death, that is, the devil ;" 
for death is evidently regarded as the " wages of 
sin," and the power of death as inseparable from 
the power of corruption. Nor is this truth only 
expressed directly and foi-mally ; it meets us again 
and again in passages simply practical, taken for 
granted, as already familiar (see Rom. xvi. 20 ; 
2 Cor. ii. 11; 1 Thess. ii. 18; 2 Thess. ii. 9; 
1 Tim. v. 15). The Bible does not shrink from 
putting the fact of Satanic influence over the soul 
before us, in plain and terrible certainty. 

Yet at the same time, it is to be obseiTed, that 
its language is very far from countenancing, even 
for a moment, the horrors of the Manichaean theory. 
The influence of Satan is always spoken of as tem- 
porary and limited, subordinated to the Divine 
CDunsfl, and broken by the Incai-nate Son of Hod. 
It is brought out visibly, in the fomr of posse.-sioM, 
in the earthly hfe of our Lord, only in order that 
it may give the opportunity of His triumph. As 
for Himself, so for His redeemed ones, it is true, 
that " God shall bruise Satan under their feet 

especially because 2 Pet. iii. 5, relating to the Flood, 
closely connected with that passage. 

seems i 


shortly" (Rom. xvi. 20; comp. Gpn. iii. IT)). 
Nor is this all, for the history of the Book of Job 
shows plainly, what is elsewhere constantly implied, 
that Satanic influence is permitteJ, in order to be 
overruled to good, to teach humility, and therefore 
faith. The mystery of the existence of evil is left 
unexplained ; but its present subordination and future 
extinction are familiar truths. So accordingly, on 
the other hand, his power is spoken of, as capable 
of being resisted by the will of man, when aided 
by the grace of God. " Resist the devil, and he 
will flee from you," is the constant language of 
Scripture f.lam. iv. 7j. It is indeed a power, to 
which "place" or opportunity "is given," only 
by the consent of man's will f Eph. iv. 27). It is 
probably to be traced most distinctly in the power 
of evil habit, a power real, but not irresistible, 
created by previous sin, and bv every successive act 
of sin riveted more closely upon the soul. It is a 
power which cannot act directly and openlv, but 
needs craft and dissimulation, in order to get ad- 
vantage over man by entangling the will. The 
"wiles" (Eph. vi. 11), the "devices" (2 Cor. ii. 
11), the "snare" (1 Tim. iii. 7, vi. 9 ; 2 Tim. ii. 
26) " of the devil," are expressions which indicate 
the indirect and unnatural character of the power 
of evil. It is therefore urged as a reason for " so- 
berness and vigilance" (1 Pet. v. 8), for the ciireful 
use of the " whole armour of God" (Eph. vi. 10- 
17) ; but it is never allowed to obscure the supre- 
macy of God's grace, or to disturb the inner peace 
of tlie Christian. " He that is born of God, keepeth 
himself, and the wicked one toucheth him not " 
(1 John V. 18). 

Besides his own direct influence, the Scripture 
discloses to us the fact that Satan is the leader of a 
host of evil spirits or angels who share his evil 
work, and for whom the " everlasting fire is pre- 
pared " (Matt. XXV. 41). Of their origin and tall 
we know no more than of his, for they cannot be 
the same as the fallen and imprisoned angels of 
2 Pet. ii. 4, and Jude 6 ; but one passage (Matt. 
xii. 24-26) identifies them distinctly with the 
Sai/jLuvia (A. V. "devils"^) who had power to 
jwssess the souls of men. The Jews there speak 
of a Beelzebub (BeeX^f^ovX), "a prince of the 
demons," whom they identity with, or symbolise 
by, the idol of Ekron, the " god of tiles " [see 
Beelzebub], and by whose power they accuse our 
Lord of casting out demons. His answer is, " How 
can Satan aist out Satan ? " The inference is clear 
that Satan is Beelzebub, and therefore the demons 
are " the angels of the devil ;" and this inference is 
strengthened by Acts x. 38, in which St. Peter 
describes the possessed as KaraSvvaarevoixevous 
virh Tov AiaP6\ov, and by Luke x. 18, in which 
the mastery over the demons is connected by our 
Lord with tlie " fall of Satan from heaven," and 
their power included by Him in the " power of the 
enemy " [tov ix^P"" i comp. Matt. .\iii. :;9). For 
their nature, see Demoxs. They are mostly spoken 
of in Sciipture in reference to possession ; but in 
Eph. vi. 12 they are described in various lights, as 
"principalities" [ajixai), "powers" (i^ovcriai), 
" rulei's of the darkness of this world," and 
" spiritual powers of vyickedness in heavenly places" 



^ It is unfortunate that the A. V. should use the word 
"devil," not only for its proper equivalent 5ia/3oAos, but 
also for Sat/u.oi'toi'. 

« The word Kocr/xo5, properly referring to the system of 
the universe, and so used in John i. 10, is generally applied 
in Scripture to human society as alienated from CJod, with 

(or " things") (ri irvevfiaTiKh tijs Trofijplas Iv 
Tols iirovpaviots) ; and in all as " wrestling " 
against the soul of man. The same reference is 
made less explicitly in Rom. viii. 38, and Col. ii. 
15. In Rev. xii. 7-9 they are spoken of as fight- 
ing with " the dragon, the old serpent allied the 
devil and Satan," against " Michael and his angels," 
and as cast out of heaven with theii' chief. Taking 
all these passages together, we find them sharing the 
enmity to God and man implied in the name and 
nature of .Satan ; but their power and action are 
but little dwelt upon in eompai-ison with his. That 
there is against us a jiower of spiritual wickedness 
is a truth which we need to know, and a mysteiy 
which only Revelation can disclose; but whether it 
is exercised by few or by many is a matter of com- 
parative indifference. 

But the Evil One is not only the " prince of the 
demons," but also he is called the " prince of this 
world " (o &.pxo>v TOV K6fffiov tovtov) in John xii. 
31, xiv. 30, xvi. 11, and even the "god of this 
world" (6 6el)9 tov alu>i/os tovtov) in 2 Cor. iv. 
4 ; the two expressions being united in the words 
Tovi Koa/xoKpaTopas tov aKSTOvs tov aloovos 
tovtov, used in Eph. vi. 12.^ This power he 
claimed for himself, as a delegated authority, in 
the temptation of our Lord (Luke iv. 6); and the 
teinptation would have been unreal, had he spoken 
altogether falsely. It implies another kind of in- 
direct influence exercised through earthly instru- 
ments. There ai'e some indications in Scripture of 
the exercise of this power through inanimate in- 
struments, of an influence over the powei-s of 
nature, and what men call the " chances" of life. 
Such a power is distinctly asserted in the case of 
Job, and probably implied in the case of the woman 
with a spirit of infirmity (in Luke xiii. 16), and of 
St. Paul's "thorn in the 'flesh" (2 Cor. xii. 7). 
It is only consistent with the attribution of such 
action to the angels of God (as in Ex. xii. 23 ; 2 
Sam. xxiv. 16; 2 K. xix. 35; Acts xii. 23) ; and, 
in our ignorance of tlie method of connexion of the 
second causes of natui-e with the Supreme Will of 
God, we cannot even say whether it has in it any 
antecedent impi'obability ; but it is little dwelt 
upon in Scripture, iu comparison with the other 
exercise of this power through the hands of wicked 
njen, who become " children of the devil," and 
accordingly " do the lusts of their father." (See 
John viii. 44; Acts xiii. 10; 1 John iii. 8-10; 
and comp. John vi. 70.) In this sense the Scrip- 
ture regards all sins as the " woi-ks of the devil," 
and traces to him, through his ministers, all 
spiritual evil and error (2 Cor. xi. 14, 15), and all 
the persecution and hindrances which oppose the 
Gospel ( Rev. ii. 10 ; 1 Thess. ii. 18). Most of all 
is tliis indirect action of Satan manifested in those 
who deliberately mislead and tempt men, and who 
at last, independent of any interest of their own, 
come to take an unnatural pleasure in the sight of 
evil-doing in others (Rom. i. 32). 

The method of his action is best disceined by an 
examination of the title, by which he is designated 
in Sci'ipture. He is called emphatically 6 StdfioKos, 
'• the devil." The derivation of the word in itself 
implies only the endeavour to break the bonds be- 

a reference to the " pomp and vanity" which makes it an 
idol (see, e. g., 1 John ii. 15) ; axuiv refers to its transitory 
character, and is evidently used above to qualify the 
startling application of the word fleds, a " god of an age " 
being of course no true God at all. It is used with icocrfios 
in Kph. ii. 2. 



tween othei-s, and "set them at vaiiance" (see, 
e.g.. Plat. Sipnp. p. 222 c : Sia^dWeiv ifie Ka\ 
'AydOwva) ; but common usage adds to this general 
sense the special idea of "setting at variance bij 
slander." In the N. T. the word Sia;8oAoi is 
used three times as an epithet (1 Tim. iii. 11 ; 
2 Tim. iii. 3 ; Tit. ii. 3) ; and in each case with 
something like the special meaning. In the appli- 
cation of the title to Satan, both the general and 
special senses should be kept in view. His general 
object is to break the bonds of communion between 
'God and man, and the bonds of truth and love 
which bind men to each other, to " set " each soul 
"at variance" both with men and God, and so 
reduce it to that state of self-will and selfishness 
which is the seed-plot of sin. One special means, by 
which he seeks to do this, is slander of God to man, 
and of man to God. 

The slander of God to man is seen best in the 
words of Gen. iii. 4, 5 : " Ye shall not surely die: 
for God doth know, that in the day that ye eat 
thereof, your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be 
as gods, knowing good and evil." Tliese words 
contain the germ of the false notions, which keep 
men from God, or reduce their sendee to Him to a 
hard and compulsory slavery, and which the hea- 
then so often adopted in all their hideousness, when 
they represented their gods as either careless of 
human weal and woe, or "envious" of human ex- 
cellence and happiness. They attribute selfishness 
and jealousy to the Giver of all good. This is 
enough (even without the imputation of folsehood 
which is added) to pervert man's natural love of 
freedom, till it rebels against that, which is made to 
appear as a hard and arbitrary tyranny, and seeks 
to set up, as it thinks, a freer and nobler standard 
of its own. Such is the slander of God to man, by 
which Satan and his agents still strive against His 
reuniting grace. 

The slander of man to God is illustrated by the 
Book of Job ('Job i. 9-11, ii. 4, 5). In reference 
to it, Satan is called the " adversary" (avriSiKosj 
of man in 1 Pet. v. 8, and represented in that cha- 
racter in Zech. iii. 1, 2 ; and more plainly still de- 
signated in Key. xii. 10, as " the accuser of our 
brethren, who accused them before our God day 
and night." It is difficult for us to understand 
what can be the need of accusation, or the power of 
slander, under the all-searching eye of God. The 
mention of it is clearly an "accommodation" of 
God's judgment to the analogy of our human expe- 
rience : but we understand by it a practical and 
awful truth, that every sin of life, and even the 
admixture of lower and evil motives which taints 
the best actious of man, will rise up against us at 
the judgment, to claim the soul as their own, and 
fix for ever that separation from God, to which, 
through them, we have yielded ourselves. In that 
accusation Satan shall in some way bear a leading 
part, pleading against man, with that worst of 
slander which is based on perverted or isolated 
facts ; and shall be overcome, not by any counter- 
claim of human merit, but " by the blood of the 
Lamb" received in true and stedtkst faith. 

But these points, imiiortant as they are, are of 
less moment than the disclosure of the method of 
Satanic action upon the heart itself. It may be 
summed up in two words— Temjitjition and Pus- 

' See the connexion between faith and love by which 
it is made perfect {iv^pyovij-ivrj) in Gal. v. b, and Ivctwocn 


The subject of temptation is illustrated, not only 
by abstract statements, but also by the record 
of the temptations of Adam and of our Lord. It 
is expressly laid down (as in .Jam. i. 2-4) that 
" temptation," properly so called, i. e. " trial " 
(TreipufffiSs), is essential to man, and is accord- 
ingly ordained for him and sent to him by God 
(as in Gen. xxii. 1). Man's nature is progressive; 
his faculties, which exist at first only in capacity 
(5wdfj.ei), must be brought out to exist in actual 
efficiency (^ivepyeicf) by free exercise.' His appe- 
tites and passions tend to their objects, simply and 
unreservedly, without lespect to the rightuess or 
wrongness of their obtaining them ; they need to be 
checked by the reason and conscience, and this 
need constitutes a trial, in which, if the conscience 
prevail, the spiiit receives strength and growth ; if 
it be overcome, the lower nature tends to predomi- 
nate, and the man has fallen away. Besides this, 
the will itself delights in independence of action. 
Such independence of physical compulsion is its high 
privilege ; but there is over it the Moral Power of 
God's Law, which, by the very fact of its truth and 
goodness, acknowledged as they are by the reason 
and the conscience, should regulate the human will. 
The need of giving up the individual will, freely 
and by conviction, so as to be in harmony with the 
will of God, is a still severer trial, with the reward 
of still greater spiritual progress, if we sustain it, 
with the punishment of a subtler and more dan- 
gerous fall, if we succumb. In its struggle the 
spirit of man can onlv gain and sustain its authority 
by that constant grace of God, given through com- 
munion of the Holy Spirit, which is the breath 
of spiritual life. 

It is this teutability of man, even in his original 
nature, which is represented in Scripture as giving 
scope to the evil action of Satan. He is called the 
"tempter" (as in Matt. iv. 3; 1 Thess. iii. 5). 
He has power (as the record of Gen. iii. shows 
clearly), first, to present to the appetites or passions 
their objects in vivid and captivating forms, so as 
to induce man to seek these objects against the Law 
of God " written in the heart ;" and next, to act 
upon the false desire of the will for independence, 
the desire " to be as gods, knowing " (that is, prac- 
tically, judging and determining) " good and evil." 
It is a power which can be resisted, because it is 
under the control and overruling power of God, as 
is emphatically laid down in 1 Cor. x. 13 ; Jam. iv. 
7, &c. ; but it can be so resisted only by yielding 
to the grace of God, and by a straggle (sometimes 
an " agony") in reliance on its strength. 

It is exercised both negatively and positively. 
Its negative exercise is referred to in the parable o( 
the sower, as taking away the word, the " engrafted 
word" (James i. 21) of grace, i. e. as interposing 
itself, by consent of man, between him and the 
channels of God's grace. Its positive exercise is set 
forth in the parable of the wheat and the tares, 
represented as sowing actual seed of evil in the in- 
dividual heart or the world generally ; and it is to 
be noticed, that the consideration of the true nature 
of the tares (fifawo) leads to the conclusion, which 
is declared plainly in 2 Cor. xi. 14, viz. that evil is 
introduced into the heart mostly as the counterfeit 
of good. 

This exercise of the Tempter's power is possil)le, 
even against a sinless nature. We see this in the 

faith and the works by which it is perfected (Tt\etoi)Tai) 
in Jam. ii. 22. 


Temptation of our I.oiii. The temptations pre- 
sented to Ilim appeal, first to the natural dcsiie 
and need of food, next to the desire of power, to 
be used for good, which is inheient in the noblest 
minds; and lastly, to the desire of testing and 
realizing God's special protection, which is the in- 
evitable tendency of human weakness, under a real 
but imperfect faith. The objects contemplated in- 
volved in no case positive sinfulness ; the temptation 
was to seek them by presumptubus or by unholy 
means ; the answer to them ( given by the Lord as 
tlie Son of Man, and therefore as one like ourselves 
in all the weakness and finiteness of our nature) 
lay in simple Faith, resting upon God, and on His 
Word, keeping to His way, and lefusing to con- 
template the issues of action, which belong to Him 
alone. Such faith is a renunciation of all self- 
conridence, and a simple dependence on the will and 
on the grace of God. 

But in the temptation of a fallen nature Satan 
has a greater power. Every sin committed makes 
a man the " servant of sin " tor the future (John 
viii. o4 ; ii'oni. vi. 16); it therefore creates in the 
spirit of man a positive tendency to evil, which 
svmpathizes with, and aids, the temptation of the 
Evil One. This is a fact recognized by experience ; 
the doctrine of Scripture, inscrutably mysterious, 
but unmistakeably declared, is that, since the Fall, 
this evil tendency is boin in man in capacity, prior 
to all actual sins, and capable of being brought out 
into active existence by such actual sins committed. 
It is this which St. Paul calls " a law," i. e. (ac- 
cording to his universal use of the word) an external 
power " of sin " over man, bringing the inner man 
(the i/ovs) into captivity fRom, \'ii. 14-24-). Its 
power is broken by the Atonement and the gift of 
the Spirit, but yet not completely cast out ; it still 
" lusts against the spirit" so that men " cannot do 
the things, which they would" (Gal. v. 17). It is 
to this spiritual power of evil, the tendency to false- 
hood, cruelty, pride, and unbelief, independently of 
any benefits to be derived from them, that Satan is 
said to appeal in tempting us. If his temptations 
be yielded to without repentance, it becomes the 
reprobate {aSSKifnos) mind, which delights in evil 
for its own sake (Kom. i. 28, 32) and makes men 
emphatically " children of the devil" (John viii. 
44; Acts xiii. 10; 1 John iii. 8, 10), and "ac- 
cursed" (Matt. XXV. 41), fit for "the fire pre- 
pared for the devil and his angels." If they be 
resisted, as by God's grace they may be resisted, 
then the evil power (the " flesh " or the " old 
man") is gradually "crucified" or "mortified," 
until the soul is prepared for that heaven, where 
no evil can enter. 

This twofold power of temptation is frequently 
referred to in Scripture, as exercised, chiefly by the 
suggestion of evil thoughts, but occasionally by the 
defegated power of Satan over outward cu'cum- 
stances. To this latter power is to be traced 
(as has been said) the trial ot Job by temporal loss 
and bodily suflfering (Job i., ii.), the remarkable 
expression, used by our Lord, as to the woman with 
a "spirit of infirmity " (Luke xiii. 16), the "thorn 
in the flesh," which St. Paul calls the "messenger 
of Satan " to buffet him (2 Cor. xii. 7). Its lan- 
guage is plain, incapable of being explained as me- 
taphor, or poetical personification of an abstract 
principle. Its general statements are illustrated 
by examples of temptation. (See, besides those already 
nu-utioned, Luke xxii. 5; John .xxiii. 27 (Judas); 
Luke xxii. 31 (Pclerj ; Acts v. 3 (Amuiias and 



Sapphim) ; 1 Cor. vii. 5 ; 2 Cor. ii. 11 ; 1 Thcss. 
iii. 5.) The subject itself is the most startling form 
of the mystery of evil ; it is one, on which, fiom 
our ignorance of the connexion of the Fir.-t Cause 
with Second Causes in Nature, and of the process 
of origination of human thought, experience can 
hardly be held to be competent, either to confirm, 
or to oppose, the testimony of Scripture. 

On the subject of Possession see Demoniacs. It 
is sufhcient here to remark, that although widely 
ditfeient in form, yet it is of the same intrinsic cha- 
i-acter as the other power of Satan, including both 
that external and internal influence to which refer- 
ence has been made above. It is disclosed to us 
only in connexion with the revelation of that 
redemption from sin, which destroys it, — a reve- 
lation begun in the first promise in Eden, and 
manifested, in itself at the Atonement, in its efl'ects 
at the Great Day. Its end is seen in the Apoca- 
lypse, where Satan is first " bound for a thousand 
years," then set free for a time for the last conflict, 
and finally " cast into the lake of fire and brimstone 
. . . for ever and ever " (xx. 2, 7-10). [A. B.] 

SATHEABU'ZANES {^adpafiovCdvns : Sa- 
trahuzanes). Shetharboznai (1 Esd. vi. 3, 7, 
27 ; comp. Ezr. v. 3, 6, vi. 6, 13). 

SATYES (On^yb', sehim : ^aiix6vLa : pilosi), 

the rendering in the A. V. of the above-named 
plural noun, which, having the meaning of " hairy " 
or "rough," is frequently applied to "he-goats" 
(comp. the Latin hircus, from hirtus, hirsutus) ; the 
Setritn, however, of Is. xiii. 21, and xxxiv. 14, 
where the prophet predicts the desolation of Babylon, 
have, probably, no allusion to any species of goat 
whether wild or tame. According to the old ver- 
sions, and nearly all the commentators, our own 
translation is correct, and Satyrs, that is, demons of 
woods and desert places, half men and half goats, 
are intended. Comp. Jerome {Comment, ad Is. 
xiii.), " Seirim vel incubones vel satyros vel sylves- 
tres quosdam homines quos nonnulli fatuos ficarios 
vocant, aut daemonum genera intelligunt." This 
explanation receives confirmation from a passage in 
Lev. xvii. 7 ; " they shall no more offer their 
sacrifices unto Seirim." and from a similar one in 
2 Chr. xi. 15. The Israelites, it is probable, had 
become acquainted with a form of goat-worship 
from the Egvptians fsee Bochiu-t, Hieroz. iii. 82.5 ; 
Jablonski Pant. Aei/i/pt. i. 273, et sqq.). The 
opinion held by Michaelis {Supp. p. 2342) and 
Lichtenstoiji {Commentat. de Simiarum, &c., §4, 



p. hO, sqq.), that the Seirlin probably denote sorne 
species of ape, lias been satictioned by Hamilton 
Smith in Kitto's Cijc. art. Ape. From a few 
passages in Pliny {N. H. v. 8 ; vii. 2 ; viii. 54) it is 
clear that by Satyrs are sometimes to be understood 
some kind of ape or monkey ; Col. H. Smith has 
figured the Macacus Arabicus as being the probable 
satyr of Babylon. That some species of Cijno- 
cephalus (dog-faced baboon) was an 'animal that 
entered into the theology of the ancient Egyptians, 
is evident from the monuments and from what 
HorapoUo (i. 14-16) has told us. The other ex- 
))lanation, however, has the sanction of Gesenius, 
Bochart, lioseiimiiller, Parkhurst, Maurer, Fiirst, 
and others. As to the "dancing" satyrs, comp. 
Virg. Ed. V. 73, 

"Saltantes satyros imitabitur Alphesiboeus." 

[W. H.] 

SAUL (^•IXK', i. e. Shaul :{i\ ; Joseph. 
"SiaovXos : Saiil), moi'e accurately SiiAUL, in which 
form it is given on several occasions in the Autho- 
rized Version. The name of various persons in the 
Sacred History. 

1. Saul of Rehoboth by the River was one of 
the early kings of Edom, and successor of Samlah 
(Gen. xxxvi. 37, 38). In 1 Chr. i. 48 he is called 
Shaui.. [G.] 


2. The first king of Israel. The name here 
first appears in the history of Israel, though found 
before in the Edomite prince already mentioned ; 
and in a son of Simeon (Gen. xlvi. 10; A. V. 
Shaul). It also occurs among the Kohathites in 
the genealogy of Samuel (1 Chr. vi. 24), and in 
Saul, like the king, of the tribe of Benjamin, better 
known as the Apostle Paul (see below p. 1154). 
Josephus {B. J. ii. 18, §4) mentions a Saul, father 
of one Simon wh6 distinguished himself at Scytho- 
polis in the early part of the Jewish war. 

In the following genealogy may be observed — 
1. The repetition in two generations of the names 
of Kish and Ner, of Nadab and Abi-nadab, and of 
Mephibosheth. 2. The occurrence of the name of 
Baal in three successive generations : possibly in 
four, as there were two Mephibosheths. 3. The 
constant shiftings of the names of God, as incor- 
porated in the proper names: (a) ^6-iel = Je-hiel. 
(6) Malchi-ahun = Je-shua. (c) Esh-6a«/= Ish- 
bosheth. (d) Mephi- (or Meri-) baal = Mephi- 
boshcth. 4. The long continuance of the family 
down to the times of Ezra. 5. Is it possible 
that Zimri (1 Chr. ix. 42) can be the usurper 
of 1 K. xvi. — if so, the last attempt of the house 
of Saul to regain its ascendancy? The time woidd 

Zeior. (LXX. Jaord.) 
Able!, or .Tpliirl = Maacfmh. 
(lS:im. ix. 1.) I (IChr. ix.) 
(I Clir. viii. 33.) 

Bajil. Ner. 

(1 Chr. ix. 26.) 

1 Chr. viii.) 

(1 Chr. ix. 3?.) 



Ahinoam = SAUL = Rizpab. 
(I Chr. ix. 3».) 

Jonathan. Ishui. Malchi-ehua. Abinadab. Esli-baal, Mcrab. David = Michal =» Phalticl. Arraont, Mephibosheth. 

(1 Sam. Joshu 

Merib-Wil. xiv. 49.) 
Mephibosheth (I Chr. ix. 34). 



«, 1.) 


Jchohdali (.laiali, 1 Chi 




Rcphar (Kcphaiah, 1 tin 


I ^_^ 

Azrikam. Uocheru. Ishmncl. Sheariah. 




150 descendants. 

~~\ 1 

Jeliush. Eliphclct. 

There is a contradiction between the pedigree in 
1 Sam. ix. 1, xiv. 51, which represents Saul and. 
Abner as the grandsons of Abiel, and 1 Chr. viii. 
33, ix. 39-, which represents them as his great- 
grandsons. If we adopt the more elaborate pedigreo 
in the Chronicles, we must cither that a 
link has been dropped between Abiel and K'ish, ia 
1 Sam. ix. 1, or that the elder Kish, tlie son of 
Abiel (1 Chr. ix. 36), h;is been confounded with 

the younger Kish, the son of Ner (1 Chr. ix. :'.!)). 
The pedigree in 1 Chr. viii. is not i'ree from con- 
fusion, as it omits amongst the sons of Abiel, Ner, 
who in 1 Chr. ix. 36 is the fifth son, and who in 
both is made the father of Kish. 

His character is in part illustrated by the fierce, 
wayward, fitful nature of the tribe [BliN.TAMlN], 
nu(i ill part accounted for by the struggle between 
the old and new systems iu which In; found him- 


self involved. To this we must add a taint of 
niiulness, which broke out in violent frenzy at 
times, leaving him with long lucid intervals. His 
all'eotions were strong, as appears in his love both 
for David and his son .Jonathan, but they were 
unequal to the wild accesses of religious zeal or 
insanity which ultimately led to his ruin. He was, 
like the earlier Judges, of whom in one sense he 
may be counted as the successor, remarkable for his 
strength and activity (2 Sam. i. 23), and he was, 
like the Homeric heroes, of gigantic stature, taller 
bv head and shoulders than the rest of the people, 
and of that kind of beauty denoted by the Hebrew 
word "good" (1 Sam. ix. 2), and which caused 
him to be compared to the gazelle, " the gazelle 
of Israel." " It was probably these e.xtei'nal quali- 
ties which led to the epithet which is frequently 
attached to his name, " chosen " — ' ' whom the Lord 
did choose " — " See ye (e. e. Look at) him whom 
the Lord hath chosen!" (1 Sam. ix. 17, x. 24; 
2 Sam. xxi. 6). 

The birthplace of Saul is not expressly mentioned ; 
but as Zelah was the place of Kish's sepulchre 
(2 Sam. xxi.), it was probably his native village. 
There is no warrant for saying that it was Gibeah,'' 
though, from its subsequent connexion with him, it 
is called often "Gibeah of Saul " [Gibeah]. His 
father, Kish, was a powerful and wealthy chief, 
though the family to which he belonged was of 
little importance (ix. 1, 21). A portion of his pro- 
perty consisted of a drove of asses. In search of 
these asses, gone astray on the mountains, he sent 
his son Saul, accompanied by a servant,'' who acted 
also as a guide and guardian of the young man 
(ix. 3-10). After a three days' journey (ix. 20), 
which it has hitherto proved impossible to track, 
tln-ough Ephraim and Benjamin [Shalisha ; Sha- 
LIM ; Zuph], they arrived at the foot of a hill sur- 
rouniled by a town, when Saul proposed to return 
home, but was deterred by the advice of the servant, 
who suggested that beibre doing so they sliould 
consult " a man of God," " a seer," as to the fate 
of the asses — securing his oracle by a present 
(^backshish) of a quarter of a silver shekel. They 
were instructed by the maidens at the well outside 
the city to catch the seer as he came out of the 
city to ascend to a saci'ed eminence, where a sacri- 
lieiaj feast was waiting for his benediction (1 Sam. 
ix. 11-13). At the gate they met the seer for the 
first time— it was Samuel. A divine intimation 
had indicated to him the approach and the future 
destiny of the youthful Benjamite. Surprised at 
his language, but still obeying his call, they ascended 
to the high place, and in the inn or caravanserai at 
the top (rh KOL-raXvixa, LXX., ix. 27) found thirty 
or (LXX., and Joseph. Ant. vi. 4, §1) seventy guests 
assembled, amongst whom they took the chief place. 
In antici]_)ation of some distinguished stranger, 
Samuel had bade the cook reserve a boiled shoulder. 



a 2 Sam. i. 19, the word translated "beauty," but the 
same term (''^V) ^ ^ Sam. ii. 18 and elsewhere is 
translated " roe." The LXX. have confounded it with a 
very similar word, and render it STYJAdicroi', "set up a 

b WhenAbiel, or Jehiel(l Chr. viii.29, ix. 35), is called 
the fatlier of "Gibeon," it probably means founder of 

c The word is IJ^J, " servant," not 131?, "slave." 

<< At Zclzah, or (LXX.) " leaping for joy." 

' Mistranslated in A. V. " plain." 

' In X. 5, tribeatk ha-Ehhivi; in x. 10, hag-r/ibeahon\y. 

from which Saul, as the chief guest, was bidden to 
tear off the first morsel (LXX., ix. 22-24). They 
then descended to the city, and a bed was prepared 
for Saul on the housetop. At daybreak Samuel 
roused him. They descended again to the skirts 
of the town, and there (the servant having left them) 
Samuel poured over Saul's head the consecrated oil, 
and with a kiss of salutation announced to him that 
he was to be the ruler and (LXX.) deliverer of the 
nation (ix. 25-x. 1). From that moment, as he 
turned on Samuel the huge shoulder which towered 
above all the rest (x. 9, LXX.), a new life dawned 
upon him. He returned by a route which, like 
that of his search, it is impossible to make out 
distinctly ; and at every step homeward it was con- 
firmed by the incidents which, according to Samuel'.s 
prediction, awaited him (x. 9, 10). At Kachol's 
sepulchre he met two men,'' who announced to him 
the recovery of the asses — his lower cares were to 
cease. At the oak* of Tabor [Plain; Taboi:, 
Plain of] he met three men carrying gifts of kids 
and bread, and a skin of wine, as an oflering to 
Bethel. Two of the loaves were offered to him as 
if to indicate his new dignity. At " the hill of 
'God" (whatever may be meant thereby, possibly 
his own city, Gibeah), he met a band of prophets 
descending with musical instruments, and he caught 
the inspiration from them, as a sign of his new life.*'' 
This is what may be called the private, inner 
view of his call. The outer call, which is related 
independently of the other, was as follows. An 
assembly was convened by Samuel at Mizpeh, and 
lots (so often practised at that time) were cast to 
find the tribe and the family which was to produce 
the king. Saul was named — and, by a Divine inti- 
mation, found hid in thecircleof baggage which sur- 
rounded the encampment (x. 17-24). His stature 
at once conciliated the public feeling, and for the 
first time the shout was raised, afterwards so often 
repeated in modern times, " Long live the king " 
(x. 23-24), and he returned to his native Gibeah, 
accompanied by the fighting part ^ of the people, 
of whom he was now to be the especial head. The 
munnurs of the worthless part of the community 
who refused to salute him with the accustomed 
presents were soon dispelled ' by an occasion arising 
to justify the selection of Saul. He was (having 
apparently returned to his private life) on his way 
home, driving his herd of oxen, when he heard one 
of those wild lamentations in the city of Gibeah, 
such as mark in Eastern towns the airival of a 
great calamity. It was the tidings of the threat 
issued by Nahash king of Ammon against 
Gilead (see Ammon). The inhabitants of Jabesh 
were connected with Benjamin, by the old adven- 
ture recorded in Judg. xxi. It was as if this one 
spark was needed to awaken the dormant spirit of 
the king. " The Spirit of the Lord came upon 
him," as on the ancient Judges. The shy, re- 

Joseph. (AjU. vi. 4, 52) gives the name Gabatha-, by which 
he elsewhere designates Gibeah, Saul's city. 

e See for this Ewald (iii. 23-30). 

** T'Tin. " tbe strength," the host, x. 26 ; comp. 2 Sam. 
xxiv. 2. The word " band " is usually employed in the 
A. V. for H-n^, a very different term, with a strict 
meaning of its own. QTrooi".] 

i The words which close 1 Sam. x. 27 are in Uie 
Hebrew text "he was as though he were deaf;" in 
Joseph. Ant. vi. 5, $1, and the LXX. (followed by Ewald), 
• and it came to pass after a month that." 



tiring nature which we have observed, vaiiislied 
never to return. He liad recourse to the expedient 
of the earher days, and summoned the people by 
the boues of two of the oxen from the herd which 
he was driving-: three (or six, LXX.) hundred thou- 
sand followed frona Israel, and (perhaps not in due 
proportion) thirty (or seventy, LXX.) thousand 
from Judah: and Jabesh was rescued. The eti'ect 
was instantaneous on the people — the punishment 
of the mui-murere was demanded — but refused by 
Saul, and the monarchy was inaucjurated anew at 
Gilgal (xi. 1-15). It should be> however, observed 
that, according to 1 Sam. xii. 12, the affair of 
Nahash preceded and occ<isioned the election of 
Saul. He becomes king of Israel. But he still 
so far resembles the earlier Judges, as to be vir- 
tually king only of his own tribe, Benjamin, or of 
the immediate neighbourhood. Almost all his ex- 
ploits are continej to this circle of territoiy or 

Samuel, who had up to this time been still named 
as ruler with Saul (xi. 7, 12, 14), now withdrew, 
and Saul became the acknowledged chief.'' In the 
2nd year' of his reign, he began to organise an 
attempt to shake oft' the Philistine yoke which 
pressed on his country ; not least on his own tribe, 
where a Philistine officer had long been stationed 
even in his own field (x. 5, xfii. 3). An aniiy of 
3000 was formed, which he soon afterwards gathered 
together round him ; and Jonathan, apparently with 
his sanction, rose against the officer '" and slew him 
(xiii. 2-1). This roused the whole force of the 
Philistine nation against him. The spirit of Israel 
was completely broken. Jlany concetded them- 
selves in the caverns ; many crossed the Jordan ; 
all were disarmed, except Saul and his son, with 
their immediate retainers. In this crisis, Saul, 
now on the very confines of his kingdom at 
Gilgal, found himself in the position long before 
described by Samuel ; longing to exei'cise his royal 
right of sacrifice, yet deterred by his sense of obe- 
dience to the Prophet." At last on the 7th day, he 
could wait no longer, but just after the sacrifice 
was completed Samuel aixived, and pronounced the 
first curse, on his impetuous zeal (xiii. 5-14). 
Meanwhile the adventurous exploit of Jonathan at 
Michmash brought on the crisis which ultimately 
drove the PhiHstines back to their own territory 
[Jonathan]. It was signalised by two remark- 
able incidents in the life of Saul. One was the first 
appearance of his madness in the rash vow which 
all but cost the life of his son (1 Sam. xiv. 24 44). 
The other was the erection of his first altar, built 
either to celebrate the victory, or to expiate the 
savage feast of the famished people (xiv. 35). 

The expulsion of the Philistines (although not 
entirely completed, xiv. 52) at once placed Saul 
in a position higher than that of any previous ruler 
of Israel. Probably fiom this time was formed 
the organisation of royal state, which contained 
in germ some of the future institutions of the 
monarchy. The host of 3000 has been already 
mentioned (1 Sam. xiii., xxiv. 2, xxvi. 2; comp. 

k Also 2 Sam.x. 15, LXX., for "Lord." 

' The expression, xiii. 1, "Saul was one year old" (tlie 
son of a year), in his reigning, may be eitlier, (1) lie 
reigned one year; or (2), the word 30 may have dropped 
out thence to xiii. 5, and it may have been " he was 31 
when he began to reign." 

■» The word may be rendered either "garrison" or 
" (ifiicer ;" its meaning is uncerlain. 

"■ The command of Samuel (x. '6) Lad apparently a 


1 Chr. xii. 29). Of this Abner became captu'n 
(1 Sam. xiv. 50). A body guard was also formed of 
runners and messengers (see 1 Sam. xvi. 15, 17, 
xxii. 14, 17, xxvi. 22).° Of this David was after- 
wards made the chief. These two were the prin- 
cipal officers of the com-t, and sate with Jonathan 
at the king's table (1 Sam.xx. 25). Another officer 
is incidentally mentioned — the keeper of the roj-al 
mules — the comes stahtili, the "constable" of 
the king — such as appears in the later monarchy 
(1 Chr. xxvii. 30). He is the first instance of a 
foreigner employed about the court — being an 
Edomite or (LXX.) SjTian, of the name of Doeg 
(1 Sam. xxi. 7, xxii. 9). According to Jewish 
tradition (Jer. Qu. Heh. ad loc.) he was the servant 
who accompanied Saul in his pursuit of his father's 
asses — who counselled him to send for David (ix., 
xvi.), and whose son ultimately killed him (2 Sam. 
i. 10). The high-priest of the house of Ithamar 
(Ahimelech or Ahijah) was in attendance upon him 
with the ephod, when he desired it (xiv. 3), ajid 
felt himself bound to assist his secret commissioners 
(xxi. 1-9, xxii. 14). 

The king himself was distinguished by a state, 
not before marked in the rulers. He had a tall 
spear, of the same kind as that described in the 
hand of Goliath. [Arjis.] This never left liim — 
in repose (1 Sam. xviii. 10, xix. 9 ) ; at his meals 
(.\x. 33); at rest (xxvi. 11), in battle (2 Sam. 
i. 6). In battle he wore a diadem on his head 
and a bracelet on his arm (2 Sam. i. 10). He 
sate at meals on a seat of his own facing his son 
(1 Sam. XX. 25; LXX.). «He was received on his 
return from battle by the songs of the Israelite p 
women (1 Sam. xviii. 6), amongst whom he was on 
such occasions specially known as biing^ing back 
from the enemy scarlet robes, and golden orna- 
ments for their apparel (2 Sam. i. 24). 

The wai'like character of his reign naturally still 
predominated, and he was now able (not merely, 
like his temporary predecessors, to act on the 
defensive, but) to attack the neighbouring tribes of 
Moab, Ammon, Edom, Zobah, and finally Amalek 
(xiv. 47). The war with Amalek is twice re- 
lated, first briefly (xiv. 48 1, and then at length 
(xv. 1-9). Its chief connexion with Saul's history 
lies in the disobedience to the prophetical command 
of Samuel ; shown in the sparing of the king, and 
the retention of the spoil. 

The extermination of Amalek and the subsequent 
execution of Agag belong to the general question 
of the moral code of the 0. T. There is no reason 
to suppose that Saul spai'ed the king for any other 
reason than that for which he retained the spoil — 
namelv, to make a more splendid show at the 
sacrificial thanksgiving (xv. 21). Such was the 
Jewish tradition preserved by Josephus {Ant. vi. 
7, §2), who expressly says that Agag was spared for 
his stature and beauty, and such is the general 
impression left by the description of the celebration 
of the victory. Saul rides to the southern Carmel 
in a chariot (LXX.), never mentioned elsewhere, 
and sets up a monument there (Heb. " a hand," 

perpetual obligation (xiii. 13). It had been given two 
years before, and in the interval they had both been at 
Gilgal (xi. 15). X.I5.— The words "had appointed" 
(xiii. 8) are inserted in A. V. 

o They were Benjamites (1 Sam. xxii. 7; Jos. Ant. 
vii. 14), young, tall, and handsome (/Wd. vl. 6, {«). 

p Jos. {Ant. vl. 10, Jl) makes the women sing the 
praises of Saul, the maidens, of David. 


2 Sam. xviii. 18), which in tlie Jewish traditions 
(Jerome, Qu. Ifcb. ad loc.) was a triumphal arch 
of olives, myrtles, and palms. And in allusion to 
his crowning triumph, Samuel ajiplies to God the 
phrase, " The Victory ( ^'ulg. triumphator) of Israel 
will neither lie nor repent" (xv. 29; and comp. 
1 C'hr. x.xix. 11). This second act of disobedience 
called down the second curse, and the fust distinct 
intimation of the transference of the kingdom to a 
rival. The struggle between Samuel and Saul in 
their final parting is indicated by the rent of 
Samuel's robe of state, as he tears himself away 
from Saul's grasp (for the gesture, see Joseph. Ant. 
v\. 7, §.5), and by the long mourning of Samuel 
for the separation — " Samuel mouraed for Saul." 
" How long wilt thou mourn for Saul ?" (xiv. 35, 
xvi. 1). 

The rest of Saul's life is one long tragedy. The 
frenzy, which had given indications of itself before, 
now at times took almost entire possession of him. 
It is described in mixed phrases as " an evil spirit 
of God" fmuch as we might speak of "religious 
madness "), which, when it came upon him, almost 
choked or strangled him from its violence (xvi. 14, 
LXX. ; Joseph. Ant. vi. 8, §2). 

In this crisis David was recommended to him by 
one of the young men of his guard (in the Jewish 
tradition gi-oundlessly supposed to be Dokg. Jerome, 
Qu. Heh. ad loc). From this time forward their 
lives are blended together. [David.] In Saul's 
better moments he never lost the strong aiiection 
which he had contracted for David. " He loved 
him greatly" (xvi. 21). " Saul would let him go 
no more home to his father's house" (xviii. 2). 
" Wherefore cometh not the son of Jesse to meat ? " 
(xx. 27). " Is this thy voice, my son David. . . . 
Return, my son David; blessed be thou, my son 
David " (xxiv. 16, xxvi. 17, 25). Occasionally too 
his prophetical gift returned, blended with his 
madness. He " prophesied " or " raved " in the 
midst of his house — "he prophesied and lay down 
naked all day and all night'' at Puamah (xix. 24). 
But his acts of fierce, wild zeal increased. The 
massacre of the priests, with all their families i ' 
(xxii.) — the massacre, perhaps at the same time, 
of the Gibeonites (2 Sam. xxi. 1), and the violent 
extirpation of the necromancers ( 1 Sam. xxviii. 
o, 9), are all of the same kind. At last the 
monarchy itself, which he had raised up, broke 
down under the weakness of its head. The Philis- 
tines re-entered the country, and with their chariots 
and horses occupied the plain of Esdraelon. Their 
camp was pitched on the southern slope of the 
range now called Little Hermon', by Shunem. On 
the opposite side, on Mount Gilboa, was the Israelite 
anny, clinging as usual to the heights which were 
their safety. It ^as near the spring of Gideon's 
encampment, hence called the spring of Harod or 
" trembling " — and now the name assumed an evil 
omen, and the heart of the king as he pitched his 
camp there " trembled exceedingly " (1 Sam. xxviii. 
5). In the loss of all the usual means of con- 
sulting the Divine Will, he determined, with that 
wayward mixture of superstition and religion which 
marked his whole career, to apply ■• to one of the 
necromancers who had escaped his persecution. 



She was a woman living at Endor, on the other 
side of Little Hermon ; she is called a woman of 
"Ob," i. e. of the ski