Skip to main content

Full text of "A dictionary of the Bible; dealing with its language, literature, and contents, including the Biblical theology;"

See other formats


Dictionary of the Bible 

Dictionary of the Bible 









A. B. D.WIDSON, D.D., LL.D., Litt.D. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., Litt.D. 


E. B. SWETE, D.D., Lirr.D. 




EuisBURou: T. it T. CLAEK 

J'.) 11 

Copyright, 1902 bv 

The Rights of Translation and of Reprodtictior^ 
are reserved 

0' '^ 






Sir Thomas Clark, Baronet 

Sometime Publisher in Edinburgh 

Rev. Andrew Bruce Davidson, 

D.D., LL.D., LlTT.D. 
S*inetine Pro/enor (»f Hebrew in the New College, Edinburgh 


In issuing the last volume of the Dictionary of thi Bible, the Editor desires 
to record his sense of the goodness of God in enabling him to carry it through 
to the end, and to beseech His blessing on the use of it, that His Name may 
be glorified. He desires also very heartily to thank all those who have been 
associated with him in its production. He thanks the Publishers for their con- 
fidence at the beginning, for the liberty they have left him, and for the perfect 
courtesy of all their intercourse with him. He thanks the Printers also, Messrs. 
Morrison & Gibb, and their employees, for their skilful workmanship and their 
patient personal interest. And he thanks all the Authors. Chosen because 
they were believed to be able to give the best account of the subjects entrusted 
to them, they have done their work in such a way as to vindicate their choice ; 
while the relations between them and the Editor have been most agreeable through- 
out. He thanks them all, but especially those with whom he has been most 
closely associated in the oversight of the work — Dr. John A. Selbie, Dr. S. K. 
Driver, Dr. H. B. Swete, and Dr. W. Sanday. There is another, Dr. A. B 
Davidson, but he has passed beyond the voice of earthly gratitude. 


L General 

Alex. = Alexandrian. 

Apoc. =Ap()calyi)se. 

Apocr. = Apocrj-plia. 

Aq. =Aquila. 

Arab. = Arabic. 

Aram. = Aramaic. 

AasjT. = Assyrian. 

Itab. =Ba)iyliiMiaD, 

c. =circa, abniit. 

Can. =Canaaiiito. 

of. = coiiii>are. 

ct. = contrast. 

D= Deuleriinomist. 

E = Eloliist. 

edd. =editi"ns or editors. 

E^jfyp. = E;,'Vptian. 

Eng. = En;;lisli. 

Etli. = Etiiiopic. 

f. =and following verse or pajje ; as Ac lO***- 

(V. =aiid following verses or pages ; as Mt ll-^*' 

Cr. =(;rwk. 

II = I^aw of 

lleb. = Hebrew. 

llel. = Hellenistic. 

Hex. = Me.\aleucli. 

Isr. =lsraiOite. 

.) =,laliwist,. 

./ " = .)elnivali. 

.lerns. =.lenisalent 

Jos. =Josepbua. 

LXX = Septnagint. 

MSS = Manuscripts. 

MT= Massoretic Text 

n. =note. 

NT = New Testament. 

Onk. =Onkelos. 

OT = ()ld Testament. 

P= Priestly Narrative. 

Pal. = Palestine, Palestinian. 

Pent. = I'entateuch. 

Pers. = Persian. 

Phil. = Philistine. 

Pha'n. = I'humieian. 

Pr. Bk. = Prayer Hook. 

R = Redactor. 

Rom. = Koman. 

Sam. = Samaritan. 

Sera. = Semitic. 

Sept. =Septnasint^ 

Sin. =Sinaitic. 

Symni. =Symiiiaclius. 

Syr. =Syriac. 

Talm. =TaliMud. 

Tarj;. =Tar;;iim. 

Tlieiid. =Theodotion. 

TK = Texlu.s Receptus. 

tr. = translate or translation. 

VSS= Versions. 

Vul;;. = Vnl;,'ate. 

WH = Westcott and Hort's text. 

II. Books of tub P.ihi.k 

Gn = Genp,si». 

Ex = Exoiliis. 

Lv = LeviMcMi8. 

Nu = NnmliiTs. 

I)t = Deuieroiioniy. 

Jos = .loshua. 

Jk = Jiid;;e8. 

Ru = Rutli. 

1 S,2 S=l and 2 Samuel 

1 K, 2 K = l and 2 Kings 

1 Ch, 2 Ch = 1 and '. 

Ezr = Ezra. 
Neli = Nehemiah. 
Est = Esther. 

Ps= I'salms. 
Pr = Proverbs. 
Eo = Ecclesiastes. 

Old Testament. 

Ca = Canticles. 
ls= Isaiah. 
Jer = .)ereniiah. 
La= Lamenlationa. 
Ezk = Ezekiel. 
l)n = Daniel. 
Hi>s = HoseiL 
Am = Amos. 
(Jb = Obadiah. 
,1 (III = Jonah. 
iMic = Micah. 
Nah = Nalium. 
Hab = Hah.M.kkuk. 
Zeph = Zeplianiah. 
Hag= Haggai. 
Zec = Zechanah. 
Mai = Malachi. 

Es, 2 Es = 

and 2 To=Tobit. 

Ad. Est = Additions to 

AVis = Wisdom. 
.Sir = Sirach or Ecclesi- 

Har = 15anicli. 
Three = Son)^ of the 

Three Children. 

Sus = Susanna. 

liel = Bel and the 

Pr. Man = Prayer of 

1 Mac, 2 Mac = l and 2 


New 'Testament. 

Mt = Matthew. 
Mk = Mark. 
I,k = I,uke. 

1 I'll, 2 Th = 1 and 2 

1 Ti, 2 Ti = 1 and 2 

Jn = .lohri. 
Ac = Acts. 
Ro = Rdiiians. 
1 Co, 2 ('0 = 1 

and 2 

IMiilciii = Philemon. 
He= Hebrews. 

Oal = Cahitian3. 
Eph = Kjihesian8. 

Ja = . lames. 

1 1', 2 P=l and 2 Peter. 

1 Jn, 2 .In, :\ Jn = l, 2, 

Col = Colos8ians. 

and 3 .lolin. 
Rev = Revelation. 


III. English Versions 

Wyc.=Wyclif8 Bible (NT c. 1380, OT c. 1382, 

Purvey's Revision c 1388). 
Tind. = Tindale'8 NT 1526 and 1534, Pent. 1530. 
Cov. =Coverdale'8 Bible 1535. 
Matt, or Rog. = Matthew's (i.e. prob. Rogers') 

Bible 1537. 
Cran. or Great=Cranmer'B 'Great' Bible 1539. 
Tav. = Taverner'8 Bible 1.539. 
Gen. = Geneva NT 1557, Bible 1560. 

Bish.= Bishops' Bible 1.568. 

Tom. =Tom9on'8 NT 1576. 

Rhem. = Rhemish NT 1582. 

Dou. = Donay OT 1609. 

AV = Authorized Version 1611. 

AVra = Authorized Version margin. 

RV = Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885. 

RVra = Revised Version margin. 

EV^ = Auth. and Rev. Versions. 

IV. For the Literaturk 

AnT=Knc\ent Hebrew Tradition. 

AJSL — \mer\cB.a Journal of Sem. Lang, and 

j4JTA = American Journal of Theology. 
y4 7"=Altes Testament. 
Bi = Bampton Lecture. 
£il/= British Museum. 
B/JP = Biblical Researches in Palestine. 
C/(r = Corpus Inscriptionum Gr.-ecarum. 
C/Z. = Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarura. 
C/5= Corpus Inscriptionum Semitiearum. 
COr= Cuneiform Inscriptions and the OT. 
DB= Dictionary of the Bible. 
Einf=Ea.T\y llistory of the Hebrews. 
G.(4P=Geographie des alten I'alastina. 
GG^ =G6ttingische Gelelirte Anzeigen. 
6'(?iV=Nacliricliten der konigl. Gesellschaft der 

Wissenschaften zu Gottingen. 
Gori''=Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes. 
GF/=Geschichte des Volkes Israel. 
nCM= Higher Criticism and the Monuments. 
i7£=Historia Ecclesiastica. 
.ffGi7// = Historical Geog. of Holy Land. 
77/= History of Israel. 
njP=\{'\story of the Jewish People. 
jrPjl/'= History, Prophecy, and the Monuments. 
.ffi'iV= Hebrew Proper Names. 
/</ff = IsraeUlische und Judische Geschichte. 
«/B// = Journal of Biblical Literature. 
J'Z)7'A = Jahrbiiclier fiir deutsche Theologie. 
«/(?/?=Jewish Quarterly Review. 
J li A S = io\ima.\ of the Roval Asiatic Society. 
</7iZ. = Jewish Religious Life after tlie Exile. 
t/7'A5'< = Journal of Theological Studies. 
KAT=\)\e Keilinschriften und das Alte Test. 
A'GF=Keilins( liriften u. Geschichtsforschung. 
^//J = KeilinKihriftliche Hibliothek. 
iCi}/ = Literarisches Centralblatt. 
iOT= Introd. to the Literature of the Old Test. 

iV^/7irB = Neuhebrfiische8 AVorterbnch. 

NTZG = Neutestaraentliche Zeitgeschichte. 

OiV^= Otium Norviceiise. 

0/' = Origin of the Psalter. 

07'J^C=The Old Test, in the Jewish Church. 

PiJ= Polychrome Bible. 

P£^F= Palestine E.\ploration Fund. 

P£i^5< = Quarterly Statement of the same. 

PSBA = Proceedings of Soc. of Bibl. Arclu-eology. 

i'iJ.B = Real-Encyclopadie fiir protest. Theologie 

und Kirche. 
QPB = Queen's Printers' Bible. 
.KiJ = Revue Biblique. 
/?/?/= Revue des Etudes Juives. 
i?P= Records of the Past. 
^S= Religion of the Semites. 
5507= Sacred Books of Old Test. 
.S/L'=Studien und Kritiken. 
5/" = Sinai and Palestine. 

6' 1^/*= Memoirs of the Survey of W. Palestine. 
TliLoT ThLZ ='Y\\eo\. Literaturzeitung. 
7"Ar=Theol. Tijdschrift. 
7".^ = Texts and .Studies. 

TSBA = Transactions of Soc. of Bibl. Archaeology. 
TU = Texte iind Untersuchungen. 
WA 1= Western Asiatic Inscriptions. 
ir/^A''il/ = Wiener Zeitschrift fiir Konde de« 

ZA = Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie. 
ZAW or Zyl7'ir= Zeitschrift fiir die Alttest. 

ZDMG = Zeitschrift der Dentschen Morgen- 

liindischen Gesellschaft. 
ZDPV='Le\X.schrilt des Deutschen Palastina- 

ZA'5/^= Zeitschrift fur Keilschriftforachung. 
ZA'ir=Zeitsclirift fiir kirchliche Wissenschaft. 
ZiVnr= Zeitschrift fiir die Neutest. Wissen. 


A small superior number designates the particular edition of the work referred to, as KAV, LOT*. 

Canaan as divided among the Twelve TaiBss . 

facing page) 1 


Israel Abrahams, M.A., Editor of the Jewish 
Quartcrbi Review, and Senior Tutor of the 
Jews' College, London. 

Rev. Alexander Adamson, M.A., B.D., Dundee. 

Rev. AVai.ter F. Adeney, M.A., D.D., Professor 
of New Testament E.\egesis in New College, 

Ven. A. S. Aglen, M.A., D.D., Archdeacon of 
St. Andrews. 

W. Baciieu, Pli.D., Profe.ssor in the Landes- 
Uabbinerschule, Budapest. 

Uev. .John S. Banks, I'rofe.ssor of Systematic 
Theology in the Headingley College, Leeds. 

Rev. W. Emery Baunks, M.A., D.D., Kellow of 
Peterhoiise, and llulsean Professor of Divinity, 

JAME.S Vernon, M.A., Professor of 
Church History, Manslield College, O.xford. 

Gkaf Wii.helm von Baudi.ssin, Professor of 
Theology in the University of Berlin. 

Rev. Ll.KWKl.LYN J. M. Bebb, M..\., Principal of 
St. David's College, Lampeter ; formerly I'ullow 
and Tutor of Urasenose College, Oxford. 

Rev. JUD.SON Bekcher, D.D., Professor 
of Hebrew Language and Literature in Auburn 
Theological Seminary, New York. 

P. V. M. Benkcke, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of 
Magdalen College, Oxford. 

Rev. William Henry Bennett, ALA., Litt.D., 
D.D., Professor of Old Testament Exegesis in 
llnckiiev and New Colleges, London ; some- 
time Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. 

Rev. Edward Ku.ssell Bernard, ALA., Chan- 
cellor and Canon of Salisbury Cathedral ; 
formerly Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. 

Rev. John Henry Bernard, D.D., Fellow of 
Trinity College, and Archbishop King's 
Lecturer in Divinity in the University of 

FREDi'.RlfK J. Bliss, B.A., Ph.D., Director of the 
Palestine Exjiloration Fund in Jerusalem. 

Kev. W. Adams Brown, ALA., Ph.D., Profes-sor 
of Systematic Theoliigy in Union Theological 
Seminary, New York. 

K. BUDDE, Ph.D., D.D., Professor of Theology in 

the University of Marburg. 

Rev. AViLLlAM Carslaw, M.A., ALD., of the 
Lebanon Schools, Bey rout, Syria. 

Rev. Arthur Thomas Chapman, M.A., Fellow, 
Tutor, and Hebrew Lecturer, Emmanuel 
College, Cambridge. 

Kev. Robert Henry Charles, D.D., Professor of 
Biblical Greek in the University of Dublin. 

CoL Claude Reignier Conder, R.E., D.C.L., 
LL.D., ALK.A.S. 

Rev. G. A. Cooke, ALA., formerly Fellow of 
Alagdalen College, Oxford. 

Rev. Henry Cowan, ALA., D.D., Professor of 
Church History in the University of Aberdeen. 

The late Kev. A. B. Davidson, D.D., LL.D., 
Professor of Hebrew and Oriental Languages 
in New College, Edinburgh. 

Rev. T. Witton Davies, B.A., Ph.D., ALR.A.S., 
Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Lit- 
erature in tlie Baptist College, Bangor, and 
Lecturer in Semitic Languages in University 
College, Bangor. 

Kev. ^V. T. Davison, ALA., D.D., Professor of 
Systematic Theology in the Handsworth 
Theological College, Birmingham. 

Rev. James Denney, ALA., D.D., Professor of 

Systematic Theology in the United Free 

Church College, Glasgow. 
The late Rev. W. P. DiCKSON, D.D., LL.D., 

I'rofcssor of Divinity in the University of 


Rev. Samuel Bolles Driver, D.D., Litt.D., 
Canon of Christ Church, and Kegius Professor 
of Hebrew in the University of Oxford. 

Rev. David Eaton, ALA., D.D., Glasgow. 

Rev. William Ewino, ALA., Glasgow, for. 
merly of Tiberias, Palestine. 

Rev. Ferries, ALA., D.D., Cluny, Aber- 

Rev. KoiiEHT F'lint, D.D.^ LL.D., Profe.ssor of 
Divinity in the University of Edinburgh. 

Rev. Alfred Ernest Gakvie, AI.A., B.D., Alon- 

Rev. John Gibr, ALA., D.D., Profes.sor of New 

Testament Exegesis in Westminster CoUct'e, 

G. Buchanan Gray, ALA., Professor of Hebrew 

in Alanslield College, Oxford. 

Rev. Alexander Grieve, ALA., Ph.D., Forfar. 

Francis Llewellyn Griffith, ALA., F.S.A., 
Superintendent of the Archa'ological Survey 
of the Egypt Exploration Fund. 


Rev. Henky Melvill Gwatkin, M.A., D.D., 
Fellow of Emmanuel College, and Dixie Pro- 
fessor of Ecclesiastical History in the University 
of Cambridge. 

Rev. G. Harford -Batteksby, M.A., Balliol 
College, 0.\ford ; Vicar of Alossley Hill, 

J. Kendel Harris, M.A., Litt.D., Fellow and 
Librarian of Clare College, Cambridge. 

Rev. Arthur Cayley Headlam, M.A., B.D., 
Rector of Welwyii, Herts; formerly Fellow 
of All Souls' College, O.xford. 

Edward Hull, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S., F.R.G.S. 
late Director of the Geological Survey of 
Ireland, and Professor of Geology in the Royal 
College of Science, Dublin. 

Montague Rhodes James, M.A., Litt.D., 
Fellow and Dean of King's College, and 
Director of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cam- 

Rev. Archibald R. S. Kennedy, M.A., D.D., 
Professor of Hebrew and Semitic Languages 
in the University of Edinburgh. 

Rev. H. A. A. Kennedy, M.A., D.Sc, Callander. 

Frederic G. Kenvon, M.A., D.Litt., Ph.D., of 

the Department of Manuscripts in the British 

Museum, late Fellow of Magdalen College, 

Eduard Konig, Ph.D., D.D., Professor of Old 

Testament Exegesis in the University of 

Rev. John Laidlaw, M.A., D.D., Professor of 

Systematic Theology in the New College, 

Rev. Walter Lock, M.A., D.D., Warden of 

Keble College, and Dean Ireland's Professor 

of New Testament Exegesis in the University 

of Oxford. 
Alexander Macalister, LL.D., M.D., F.R.S., 

F.S.A., Fellow of St. John's College, and 

Professor of Anatomy in the University of 

Rev. George M. Mackie, M.A., D.D., Chaplain 

to the Church of Scotland at Beyrout, Syria. 

Rev. J. A. M'Clymont, M.A., D.D., Aberdeen. 
Rev. Hugh Macmillan, M.A., D.D., LL.D., 

The late Rev. John MACrHERSON, M.A., Edin- 

Rev. D. S. Margomoutii, M.A., Fellow of New 
College, anil l.audian Professor of Arabic in 
the University of Oxford. 

Rev. John Turner Marshall, M.A., Principal 
of the Biiptist College, Manchester. 

Rev. Arthur James Mason, M.A., D.D., Lady 
Margaret's Reader in Divinity in the Uni- 
versity of Cambridge, and Canon of Canter- 

John Massie, M.A., Yales Professor of New 
Test.ament Exegesis in Mansheld College, 
Oxford ; formerly Scholar of St. John's Col- 
lege, Cambridge. 

Rev. Selah Mkimiill, D.D., LL.D., U.S. Consul 
at Jerusalem. 

Rev. George Milligan, M.A., B.D. , Caputh, 

Rev. William Morgan, M.A.. Tarbolton. 

Rev. R. Waddy Moss, Professor of Classics in the 
Didsbury College, Manchester. 

Rev. James H. Moulton, M.A., D.Litt., Senior 
Classical Master in the Leys School, Cam- 

W. Max Muller, Ph.D., LL.D., Professor of 
Old Testament Literature in the Reformed 
Episcopal Church Seminary, Philadelpliia. 

Eberhard Nestle, Ph.D., D.D., Professor at 

Rev. Thomas Nicol, M.A., D.D., Professor of 
Divinity and Biblical Criticism in the Uni- 
versity of Aberdeen. 

W. Nowack, Ph.D., Professor of Theology in the 
University of Strassburg. 

Rev. William P. Paterson, M.A., D.D., Pro- 
fessor of Systematic Theology in the Uni- 
versity of Aberdeen. 

Rev. James Patrick, M. A., B.D., B.Sc., Examiner 
for Degrees in Divinity in the Univer.sity of 
St. Andrews. 

Rev. John Patrick, M.A., D.D., Professor of 
Biblical Criticism and Biblical Antiquities in 
the University of Edinburgh. 

Arthur S. Peake, M.A., Professor in the Primi- 
tive Methodist College, Manchester, and 
Lecturer in Lancashire Independent College ; 
sometime Fellow of Merton and Lecturer in 
Mansfield College, Oxford. 

William Flinders Petrie, M.A., D.C.L., Pro- 
fessor of Egyptology in University College, 

THEoriiiLUS Goldridqe Pinches, LL.D., 
M.R.A.S., London. 

Rev. Alfred Plummer, M.A., D.D., Master of 
University College, Durham. 

Rev. Frank Chamberlin Porter, M.A., Ph.D., 
D.D., Professor of Biblical Theology in the 
Divinity School of Yale University, New 

Rev. Harvey Porter, B.A., Ph.D., Professor in 
the American College, Beyrout, Syria. 

Rev. George, M.D., F.L.S., Professor in 
the American College, Beyrout, Syria. 

Ira Maurice Price, M.A., B.D., Ph.D., Professor 
of Semitic Languages and Literatures in the 
University of Chicago. 

Rev. Cyril Henry Prichard, M.A., late Classical 
Scholar of Magd.nlene College, Cambridge, and 
Lecturer at St. Olave's, Southwark. 

The late Rev. George T. Purves, D.D., LL.D., 
Professor of New Testament Literature and 
Exegesis in Princeton Theological Seminary, 
New Jersey. 

William M. Ramsay, D.C.L., LL.D., Litt.D., 
I'rofessor of Humanity in the University of 
Aberdeen, Honorary Fellow of Exeter and 
Lincoln Colleges, Oxford. 

Rev. Henry A. Redpatii, M.A., Rector of St. 
Dunstau's in the East, London. 

Rev. Frederick Relton, A.K.C, Vicar of St. 
Andrew's, Stoke Newington, London. 

Rev. Archibald Robertson, M..\., D.D., LL.D., 
Principal of King's College, London, late 
Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford. 

J. W. Rothstein, Ph.D., D.D., Professor o/ 
Theology in the University of Halle. 


Rev. Stewart Dingwall Fordyce Salmond, 
M.A., D.l)., K.E.I.S., I'rinciijal and Professor 
of hysteinatic Theology ia the United Free 
Church College, Aberdeen. 

Rev. William Sanday, M.A., D.D., LL.D., Lady 
Margaret Professor of Divinity, and Canon of 
Christ Church, Oxford. 

Rev. Archibald Henry Sayce, M.A., LL.D., 
Fellow of Queen's College, and Professor of 
Assyriology in the University of Oxford. 

Rev. JouN A. Selbie, M.A., D.D., Maryculter, 

C. Siegfried, Ph.D., Geh. Kirchenrath and Pro- 
fessor of Theology in the University of Jena. 

Rev. John Skinner, RI.A., D.D., Professor of 
Hebrew and Old Testament Exegesis in 
Westminster College, Cambridge. 

Rev. George Adam S.mith, M.A., D.D., LL.D., 
Professor of Hebrew in the United Free Church 
College, Glasgow. 

Rev. Vincent Henry Stanton, M.A., D.D., 
Fellow of Trinity College, and Ely Professor 
of Divinity in the University of Cam- 

John F. Stknning, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer 
in Hebrew and Theology, Wadham College, 

Rev. George Barker Stevens, Ph.D., D.D., 
Dwight Professor of Systematic Theology in 
Yale University. 

Rev. W. li. Stevenson, M.A., 15. D., Professor of 
Jlebrew and Old Testament Introduction in 
the Theological College, liala. 

St. George Stock, M.A., Pembroke College, 

Rev. James Strachan, M.A, St. Fergus. 

Hermann L. Strack, Ph.D., D.D., Professor of 
Theology in the University of llerlin. 

Rev. John Taylor, U.A., Litt.D., Vicar of 

Henry St. John Thackeray, M.A., Examiner 
in the Board of Education, formerly Divinity 
Lecturer in Selwyn College, Cambridge. 

Rev. Thomas Walker, M.A., Professor of Hebrew 
in the Assembly's College, Belfast. 

Rev. B. B. Warfield, M.A., D.D., Professor of 
Theology in Princeton University. 

Lieut.-General Sir Charles Warren, G.C.M.G., 
K.C.B., F.R.S., Royal Engineers. 

Rev. Adam C. AVelch, M.A., B.D., Glasgow. 

The late Rev. HENRY AlcoCK White, M. A., Tutor 
in tlie University of Durham, and formerly 
Fellow of New College, Oxford. 

Rev. H. J. White, M.A., Fellow and Chaplain of 
Merton College, Oxford. 

Rev. Newport J. D.White, M. A., B.D., Librarian 
of Archbisliop Marsli's Library, and Assistant 
Lecturer in Divinity and Hebrew in tlie 
University of Dublin. 

Rev. Owen C. Whitehouse, M.A., D.D., Prin- 
cipal and Professor of Biblical Exegesis and 
Tlieulogy in Cbeslmnt College. 

Rev. A. Lukvn Williams, M.A., Vicar of Guilden 
Morden and Examining Chaplain to the Bisli"p 
of Durham. 

Lieut.-General Sir CHARLES William Wilson, 
K.i:., K.C.IJ., K.C.M.G., D.C.L., LL.D., 

Rev. Francis Henry Woods, M.A., B.D., Vicar 
of Chalfont St. Peter, and late Fellow and 
Theological Lecturer of St. John's College, 

Rev. John Wortabet, M.A., M.D., Beyrout, 

VOL. IV. Map 7. 

'Ti» £^bur^ Oeo^^iual luaiiiiit* 


PLEROMA {irK-fipuiui ; Lat. plenitudo, supple- 
mcntiiiii. plrromn; AVand RV 'fulness'). — A word 
of common Greek usage, which is raised to a semi- 
technical meaning in relation to God in certain 
books of the NT connected with Asia Minor (Ephe- 
sians, Colossians, John (prol.)). This meaning 
may have been given to it first by St. Paul ; but 
his absolute use of it in Col 1'", without any 
explanation added, suggests that it was already 
in use anion" the teachers against whom he 
is writing. Lightfoot conjectures that it had a 
Palestinian origin, representing the Hebrew kSd. 

The word it.self is a relative term, capable of 
m.any shades of meaning, according to the subject 
with which it is joined and the antithesis to which 
it is contrasted. It denotes the result of the action 
of the verb irXrjpovv ; but TX-npoCv is either (a) to fill 
up an empty thing (e.jr. Mt 13^), or {/>) to com- 
plete an incomplete thing {e.ff. Mt 5") ; and the 
verbal substantive in -/ta may express either (1) 
the objective accusative after the verb, 'the thing 
tilled or completed,' or (2) the cognate accusative, 
' the state of fulness or completion, the fulfilment, 
the full amount,' resulting from the action of the 
verb (Ko Il'= 13'» 15^, 1 Co 10=«). It may em- 
phasize totality in contrast to its constituent 
parts; or fulness in contrast to emptiness (Wmj^o); 
or completeness in to incompleteness or 
deficiency (iKrHprum Col 1", 2 Co 1 1", iJTTTjMa Ko 11"). 
A further ambiguity when it is joined with 
a genitive, which may be either subjective or 
objective, the fulness which one thing gives to 
another, or which it receives from another. 

In its semi-technical application it is applied 

Frimarilj- to the perfection of God, the fulness of 
lis Being, ' the aggregate of the Divine attributes, 
virtues, energies' ; this is used quite absolutely in 
C'ol 1'" {(V avrtfj evdoKrjafif irdv t6 nXripujfjLa, KaroiKrijai), 
liut further defined (llaSTraKTd TXrjpu/xa tjjs flfdrTjTos, 
'the whole completeness of the Divine nature.' in 
Col 2", (2) as iroK t6 vXr/piJiia. toD OcoO, 'the whole 
(moral) perfection which is characteristic of God,' 
in Kph 3". Secondarily, this same TrX-qpu/jia is 
transfencd to Christ ; it was embodied periiia- 
ncnlly in Him at the Incarnation (Col 1'") ; it still 
dwells permanently in His glorified Dody, ir ainif 
KaroiKfl tTwfiartKws (Col 2") ; it is t6 irX-Qpu^o. tov 
Xpi<rrov (Eph 4'"), the complete, moral, and intel- 
lectual jierfection to which Christians as|iire and 
with which they are filled (Eph 4'», Col 2" iari iv 
airn^ Tr(Tr\7]pu^voL. Cf. .Jn I'" ^atoC irXT^pw^iaTos aiVoD 
itfiih irdfTts iXi^oiiev, where n-Xr)pu^ is tlie state of 
Him who is vX-qpri^ x'^P^''"^ *"' a\r\0das, 1", cf. Lk 2*" 
trXi^poeyuccov coipiai). This indwelling emphasizes 
vou IV. — I 

tlie completeness with which the Son represents 
the Father ; it is the fulness of life which makes 
Him the representative, without other intermediary 
agencies, and ruler of the whole universe ; ami it is 
the fulness of moral and intellectual perfection 
which is communicable through Him to man ; it 
is consistent with a fjradual growth of human 
faculties (Lk 2'"), theretore with the phrase iairrbv 
iK(vui7ev of Ph 2', which is perhaps intended as a 
deliberate contrast to it [Keno.sls]. One further 
application of the phrase is made in Eph 1^, where 
it 13 used of the Ciiurch, tA irXijpoj/ra tov t4 irat/Ta iv 
Taaiv rXripovnivov. Here the genitive is perhaps 
subjective — the fulness of Christ, His full embodi- 
ment, that fulness which He supplies to the 
Church — emphasizing the thoroughness with which 
the Church is the receptacle of His powers and 
represents Him on earth. The analogy of the 
other of the word with the genitive of the 
person (Eph 3" 4"), and the stress throughout these 
books on Christians being filled by Christ {Eph 
3'" 4'^ 5'», Col 1" 2"' 4'^ Jn 1'" 3*^), favours this 
Tiew. But the genitive may be objective, ' the 
complement of Christ,' that which completes Ilim, 
which fills up by its activities the work which His 
withdrawal to heaven would have left undone, as 
the liody comjdetes the head. The analogy of the 
liodv, the stress laid on the action of the Church 
(Epli 3'°-"'), St. Paul's language about himself in 
Col 1^ {avTavaTrXrqpQj rd vaT(pr]p.aTa twv d\i^piwv tou 
XptffToD), support this, and it is impossible to decide 
between the two. The former view has been most 
common since the thorough examination of the 
word by Fritzsche {Horn. ii. i)p. 4()9li'.) and Light- 
foot [C'vl. ad loc. and Ad<litional Note), and is slill 
taken l)y von Soden (Ilaml-Cimim. ad luc.) and 
Macpherson (Expu.sitor, 1890, pp. 462-472). Hut 
the latter view, which was that of Origen and 
Chrysostom, has been strongly advocated of late 
by I'lleiderer {I'avlinism, ii. p. 172), T. K. AblMttt 
{Ititiniritional Critkal Comm. ad loc), and most 
fully J. A. Robinson {Exposifnr, 1808, np. 241-259). 

Outside the NT the word occurs in Ignatius in a 
sense which is clearly inlluenced by tlie NT, and 
ajiparently in the meaning of the Itivine fulness, 
as going forth and blessing and residing in the 
Church {Eph. Inscr. r-g (i'Xoyrj/ji^fii iv iie-^iVti 8(ou 
rarpiis TrXrjpw/iaTi, and Trail. Inscr. fli- Koi dffjrdj'o^ai 
ill T(f 7rX7)pii/iaTi, almost = ^1- Xpurrif [but see light- 
foot, arl (or.]). 

In Gnosticism the use becomes yet more stt.eo- 
typed and technical, thouj^h its applications are still 
very variable. The Gnostic writers ajiiieal to the 
use in the NT {e.g. Ireu I. iii. 4), and the word 



retains from it the sense of totality in contrast to 
the constituent parts ; but the chief associations 
of irXripufia in tlieir systems are with Greek philo- 
sophy, and the nuiin thought is that of a state of 
complutuness in contrast to deliciency {ixTTipiifia, 
Iren. I. xvi. 3 ; Hippol. vi. 31), or of the fulness of 
real existence in contrast to the empty void and 
unreality of mere phenomena {K^Ko/ia, Iren. I. iv. 1). 
Thus in Cerinthus it expressed the fulness of the 
Divine Life out of which the Divine Christ 
descended upon the man Jesus at his baptism, 
and into which He returned (Iren. I. xxvi. 1, 
III. xi. ' xvi. 1). In the Valentinian sj'.stem it 
stands m antithesis to the essential incomprehen- 
sible Godhead, as 'the circle of the Divine attri- 
butes,' the various means by which God reveals 
Himself: it is the totality of the thirty .'eons or 
emanations which proceed from God, but are 
separated alike from Him and from the material 
universe. It is at times almost localized, so that 
a thing is spoken of as 'within,' 'without,' 'above,' 
'below' the Pleroma : more often it is the spirit- 
world, the archetypal ideal existing in the invisible 
heavens in contrast to the imperfect phenomenal 
manifestations of that ideal in the universe. Tlius 
'the whole Pleroma of the teons 'contributes each 
its own excellence to the historic Jesus, and He 
appears on earth ' as the perfect beauty and star 
of the Pleroma' (TeXeiArarov koXXos /tai iarpov toO 
rXripiiimro!, Iren. I. xi. 6). Again, each separate 
seen is called a irX-Zipw^a in contrast to its earthly 
imperfect counterpart, so that in this sense the 
plural can be used, irX-npaiiara (Iren. I. xiv. 2) ; and 
even each individual has his or her Pleroma 
or spiritual counterpart (t6 irXrjpuna avriii of the 
Samaritan woman, — Heracleon, ap. Origen, xiii. 
p. 205 ; ap. Stieren's Irenmus, p. 950). Similarly 
It was used by Ophite writers as equivalent to 
the full completeness of perfect knowledge (Pwis* 
Sophia, p. 15). It thus expressed the various 
thonghts which we should express by the God- 
head, the ideal, heaven ; and it is probably owing 
to this ambiguity, as well as to its heretical associa- 
tions, that the word dropped out of Christian theo- 
logy. It is still used in its ordinary unteclinical 
meaning, e.g. Theophylact (p. 530) speaks of the 
Trinity as ir\i)pw/ia toC CeoD ; but no use so technical 
as that in Ignatius reappears. 

For fuller details ci. Suicer's Thesaurus, s.v. ; 
Lightfoot, Col. ('Colossian Heresy' and Additional 
Note); Smith's Diet. ChrUt. Bior/r. s.vv. 'Gnosti- 
cism,' 'Valentinus'; Cambridge texts and Studies, 
i. 4, p. 105. W. Lock. 


in vol. i. p. 49. 

PLUMBLINE, PLUMMET.— A line or cord with 
a heavy weight attached, used by masons when 
erectin" a building, to ascertain if the walls are 
perpendicular. The plumbline used by the Syrian 
masons is a cord passing freely through a hole in 
the centre of a cylindrical piece of wood about 3 in. 
long ; at one end of the cord is a hollow cone of 
copper filled with lead. The cord is fastened to a 
ring inserted into the centre of the b.ase of the cone- 
shaped plummet, the diameter of the base being 
the same as the length of the C3'limler of wood. 
One end of the piece of wood is aj)plied to the face 
of the wall, and the plummet is allowed to descend 
slowly. If the rim of the just toudies the 
surface of the stones the wall is perjiemlicular. 
Several Heb. words are rendered plummet or 
plumbline. 1. i;n, literally, a stone, proliably 
showing that the original plummet wa.s a sus- 
pended stone. Is 34". In Zee 4'" the ex])re.ssi()n px 
T'jri (see Nowack, ad lac.), a stone of tin, a 
plummet, is used. 2. Tut; Am V- ". The etymology 

of this word is doubtful. There are similar words 
in cognate laiigu;t^;es for ' lend,' ' tin ' (cf. Oxf. Heb. 
Lex. s.v.). 3. r^pi-r in 2 K 21", n^Rfp Is 28", a 
weight. In all the Scripture references to ' plum- 
met' or 'plumb-line,' the term is used metaphori- 
cally, e.17. in Am 7", where J" is to set a plummet in 
the very midst of His people (i.e. apply to it a 
crucial moral test), and whatever does not conform 
to its standard will be destroj'ed (Driver, ad toe). 

W. Carslaw. 

'children of Solomon's servants' who returned 
with Zerubbabel are mentioned the D'3iri rnzi "ia. 
Ezr 2"=Neh 7=^" (D-;;>-n 's -jg). The LXX, mis- 
understanding the passage, divides into two propel 
names (in Ezr B viol 4>a<Tpd8, viol' Aire^aeli', A 'PaKepa.6, 
'Aae^uelfi. ; in Neh B viol <taKapdff, viol Zafiadu, 
A . . . ^axapdO . . . ). In 1 Es 5** the LXX has 
viol ^aftapiO 2a/3(e)i77. See PlIACAP.ETH. The Heb. 
pochereth-luizzebaim means ' hunter of gazelles.' 

J. A. Selbie. 

POET.— Only Ac 17^ ' As certain even of your 
own poets have said. For we are also his otispring.' 
By ' your own poets ' (ol Kad' i/xai [WH marg. nudi 
after B, 33 etc, Copt.] TroiTjTcii) Lightfoot thinks 
St. Paul meant poets belonging to the same school 
as his Stoic audience {Dissertntions on Apost. 
Age, p. 288 f.). The words have been tr.aced to 
Cleanthes' Htjmn to Zeus, 5, where we read, ' For 
Thine oll'spring are we (Ik croO yap yinoi ^jfi^v), 
therefore will I hynm Thy pr.aises and sing Thy 
might forever. Thee all this universe which rolls 
about the earth obeys, wheresoever Tliou dost 
guide it, and gladly owns Thy sway.' Than in 
this ' sublime hymn,' says Lightfoot [Dissert, p. 
3UG), ' heathen devotion seldom or never soars 
biglier.' Cleanthes belongs to the 4th cent. B.C. 
The exact words of St. Paul's quotation {toO 7d(: 
Kal yifoi iaixiv) have been found in another Stoic's 
writings, the Phcennmena of Aratus of Soli (of the 
3rd cent. B.C.), and the form of the ajiostle's 
expression, 'some of j^our own poets,' may mean 
that he knew the words to be found in more than 
one poet. 

In 1 Co 15'' and Tit 1" quotations have been 
discovered from other Greek poets, but they par- 
take rather more of the character of common 
proverbs than the quotation from Cleanthes or 
Aratus. The first ((pdelpovaif i^Br) XPV"^' oM'-^'a' 
KaKai) liiis been traced to the Thais of Menander, a 
comic poet of the 3rd cent. B.C. The line is 
iambic trimeter, and the form xp'^"^' of the TR 
is necessary for the scansion ; xP'Q"''^ '^ however, 
the form in almost all MSS, and adopted by 
almost all editors, so that the feeling for the 
metre of the line was not present when the apostle 
wrote. The second (Kp^res dfi xpevarixt., KaKo. 6r)pla, 
yaaripe^ dpyal) is a complete hexameter verse, .and 
comes from the Hepl xpvi^'^" of Epimenides, who 
lived about R.c. 6()i). It is also found in the Hymn 
to Zens of Callinuichus. 

These fragments of Greek verse exhaust the 
poetry (if the word is to be used in its usual con- 
notation) of the NT. It is extremely probable, 
however, that many of our Lord's sayings were 
cast in the forms of Hebrew poetry. See the 
articles by Briggs on ' The Wisdom of Jesus the 
Messiah' in the Expos. Times, vol. viii. (1897) 
pp. 3!)3ir., 452 in, 49211"., vol. ix. (1898)69 If., and 
less fully in his Study of Holy Scripture (1899), 
p. 373 tl. J. Hastings. 


t The Form of Heb. poetry. 

A. Poems written in Proea. 

B, Poems written in Verse. 

1. The External evideucei 



t. The rules for the form of Ileb. poetry : (a) the 
line ; (i>) the verse ; (c) parallelism ; (d) metre : 
the Ipinah and other kincLs of verse ; (e) the 
scale for the lines ; (/) strophes ; (g) subordi- 
nate matters of form. 
IL The Sfntorial of Heb. poetry. 

A. Tile difTereot species of poetoy. 

B, The eniploj-ment of poetry. 

1. Folk-poetrj- : (n) in family life ; (6) In the life of 

the community ; (c) in the religious life ; (d) in 
the national life. 

2, The poetry of the Prophet*. 
S. Artistic poetry. 

Poems are works of art, whose substratum is 
BupplicU by human speech. Since they make their 
impression only through oral utterance, which from 
its very nature dies away, they require for their 
perpetuation— differing in this from the works of 
plastic art — the medium of wTiting. By the signs 
of tlie latter they can afterwards be reproduced 
with more or less fidelity, in proportion to the 
Butiiciency of the system of writing and the state 
of preservation of the script in which it has reached 
ns. Like every work of art, the poem has for its 
chief source the creative imagination of its author ; 
in everj' instance a strong element of invention 
enters into its construction. Its aim is a;sthetic 
enjoyment, it seeks to work upon the senses, the 
emotions, the imagination, of the hearer. An 
ulterior purpose, namely, to influence directly the 
will and conduct of those who happen to make 
acquaintance with the poem, is, strictly speaking, 
sutside the scope of poetry, aa of art in general. 
But although a discourse whose interest is judicial, 
political, or social, has certainly, in spite of all the 
rhetorical art expended upon it, no claim to be 
called a poem, yet the border-line is a shifting 
one. Tliere are edifying, didactic, political com- 
positions, which in spite of their underlying 
' tendency ' do not cease to be poems in the fullest 
sense, wliile the claim of others to this title may 
be disputed. 

The aim of poetry may be reached without the 
employment of special, external, palpable means 
such aa distinguish the language of poetry from 
that of daily use. There are poems free from the 
trammels of verse, composed in simple prose, nay, 
in recent times the employment of the prose form 
in poetry is more common than that of verse. 
This is the case above all with the drama, and in 
the next place with the epos in the form of the 
novel ; it is only for lyric poetry that the use of 
the prose form constitutes a great exception.* In 
ancient times the employment of was the 
rule for every species of poetry ; where the prose 
form prevails, it will generaliy be found to be in 
compositions which lie upon the dubious border- 
line referred to above. 

The question whether poetry has a place in the 
Holy Scriptures could be raised as long as men 
held fast to the strict verbal inspiration doctrine. 
From that standpoint the admixture of so strongly 
human and subjective an element might appear to 
contradict the purely Divine and objective origin 
of the words of the Bible. Better knowledge 
now teaches ns that no device of human language 
is to be declared incapable of employment in 
Scripture. Yet poetry will not be the rule there, 
for neither of the two collections of books that 
make uji the Bible is arranged from the point of 
view of art, but from that of religious value ; they 
are collections not of national bnlles leltres but of 
Sacred Writings. At the same time, however, the 
Old Testament embraces all that has come down to 
ns of the literature of the people of Israel in its 
early days, go that for our knowledge of the 
poetry and the poetical art of the ancient Hebrews 
we have to turn solely to this collection of their 
Sacred Writings. 

* Cf. e.g. Hardenberg (NoTklli), Uymnen an ii» IfacJtt, 

i. The Form of Hebhew Poetry.—^. Poejis 
wniTTIcy IS Prose. — Prose-poems are not absent 
from the OT, j'et the border-lines for their re- 
cognition are hard to draw. If all fiction could 
be called poetry, then the tale of the woman of 
Tekoa (2 S 14'"") would have to be included in this 
category, and still more the story told by the 
prophet Nathan (2 S 12'"^). But "in both 
narratives we have simply rhetorical artifices, both 
give themselves out in the first instance as bare 
statements of actual occurrences. It is otherwise 
Willi Jotham's fable (Jg 9"*), which presents itself 
within the framework of his address as a didactic 
composition, and is to be placed on the same plane 
as the parables of Jesus in the New Testament. 
The Books of Jonah, Ruth, Esther, and the Daniel 
narratives in Dn 1-G, are regarded by modern OT 
science as products of Jewish novel-writin<', of 
which furtlier instances, outside the Canon, have 
come down to us in the Books of Judith, Tobit, 
2 Maccabees, etc.* But their quality as poetry 
stands and falls with the verdict reached by criti- 
cism, for, the moment their contents are declared 
to be historical, they lose all claim to this title. 
In any case, it is to be observed that these prose- 
poems one and all belong to a late period ; but, on 
the other hand, the jjrologue and the epilogue of 
the Book of Job, which in contradistinction from 
the speeches in chs. 3-41 are composed in prose, 
show that the date alone does not decide the pro- 
cedure in this matter. The reason for this diti'er- 
ence of form will have to be examined below (see 
pp. g"" and 10*). 

B. Poems wjuTTsy ix Verse.— l. The External 
Evidence. — Far more prominent are the poems 
composed in verse, and of these alone we mean 
to speak in what follows. That the ancient Hebrews 
possessed and consciously employed in poetry pre- 
scribed poetical forms constructed for that special 
purpose, may be proved with certainty from the 
OT itself. The evidence is found first of all in the 
peculiar expressions used to designate poetry, the 
poet and his activity (cf. especially the roots '7sa 
and Tp), in the application of these peculiar terms 
to certain compositions (cf. the numerous intro- 
ductions and superscriptions, such as Ex 15', Jg 5', 
Nu 21"-*'), in the statement that certain passages 
were recited to the accompaniment of music, and 
sometimes of dancing, e.g. Ex IS-*, IS 18" ; cf. 
also many of the titles of the P.salms. We are 
carried a point beyond this by the alphabetical 
poems, in which equal poetical units are clearly 
separated from one another through their initial 
letters being arranged so as to form the Heb. 
alphabet. Most important are Pss 111 and 112, in 
which each several line bears a new letter, and 
next to these are to be reckoned those poems in 
which, like Pss 23. 34. 145, PrSl'""*', a letter is given 
to each verse. The Synagogue tradition {S/iabbath 
1036, Sopherim, ch. 12 ; cf. Strack, Prolegom. crit. 
in Vet. Test. Heb. p. 80) at least testifies to and 
enjoins the writing in distinct lines of the songs 
Ex 15, Dt 32, Jg 5, 2 S 22, no doubt because these 
are called ' songs ' in the titles they bear. But 
this is to recognize expressly the poetical form of 
these passages. 

2. The rules for the form of Heb. poetry. — a. 
The line.— Par more uncertain than the fact that 
the Hebrews possessed a form of composition 
specially devised for use in poetry is the question 
as to the rules of this form, or, in other words, as 
to the metrical system of the ancient Hebrews. 
On this suliject there is no tradition worthy of the 
name, rather must the laws of Heb. metre be 
deduced from the poems themselves. Fortunately, 

• Cf. C. A. nrii,-i,'9((;rn<To; Inlrod. lo .Stttd;! of Uoli/ Scripture, 
New York, IbO'j. p. 34111.), who calls these books 'prose works 
of the ima^nation.' 



there are two factors that from the first stand 
out as indubitably established. The first of these 
is the line ((rrlxos), externally authenticated, as 
hoM just been said, by Pss 111 and 112, as well as 
t)3' the circumstance that in the MSS some poems 
are written sticliically, and latterlj' also hy the 
newly discovered fragments of the Heb. Sirach, 
which are likewise written in stichoi. It is the 
fundamental rule of all metrical composition, the 
jiie indispensable conilition, that the continuous 
flow of the discourse should be divided into short 
word-groups, which, as far as the sense is con- 
cerned, have a certain independence. It is only 
in highly developed forms of poetry that the inde- 
pendence of the lines, in this ni.atter of the sense, 
IS more or less superfluous. The limit for the 
length of these lines is one imposed by nature, 
namely, that each line should be capable of being 
pronounced in a single easy breath. Such lines 
detach themselves from one another with perfect 
clearness in all the poetical parts of the OT, and 
there cannot be a moment's doubt that it is not the 
logic of the discourse but an artificial design that 
has divided the flow of the language in this way. In 
Hebrew, especially, the end of the line uniformly 
coincides with a break in the sense, and even the 
accentuation of our texts is seldom wrong as to 
the correct division. It is possible to have poems 
which employ no other method as to their form 
than such a separation into the briefest units 
that give a complete sense, although these do not 
stand in an exact rhythmical relation to one another 
or mutuallj' unite themselves into uniform groups. 
This is exemplified, for instance, in a number of 
Goethe's finest poems, such as Der Gesang der 
Geistcr iiher den Wassern, Grenzen der 3Ienschheit, 
Ganijmed, Prometheus, etc. 

b. The verse. — As well established as the line is 
the second higher poetical unit, the verse. In 
Heb. poetry a plurality of lines, in by far the 
majority of instances two of these, regularly com- 
bine to form a verse. This unit is likewise wit- 
nessed to by tradition. The sign for the close of 
the verse (the double point pins 'iin) is undoubtedly 
the earliest addition made to the consonantal text, 
and is handed down along with the latter, where 
accents, vowels, and diacritical points are wanting. 
The division by cpirs is already witnessed to in the 
Mishna [Megillnh iv. 4). The verse-division, to be 
sure, is not confined to the poetical sections of the 
(3T, but is carried through everywhere. But it 
is a circumstance of extreme importance that in 
the poetical sections the verse - divider does not 
stand at the close of each stichos, but regularly 
(with extremely rare exceptions) includes several 
of these. And though it happens frequently that 
several metrical verses are combined in a single 
Massoretic verse, on the other hand it is one of 
the rarest occurrences to find the verse - divider 
wrongly separating stxchoi of the same verse from 
one another. 

c. Parallelism. — The connecting agency, how- 
ever, which unites the verse-members so as to form 
the verse, was not clearly recognized and defined 
till Last century. The merit of this belongs to 
Bishop Lowth in his epoch-making book, T)e sacra 
poesi kebr(Eorum, which appeared in the same year 
(175.3) as Astruc's Conjectures. There in his Pra;- 
lectio xix., p. 2.'57,* he says : — 

' Poetica sententiarura compoaitio niaximam partem constat 
in OHjualitate, ac similitudine quadam, fdve parnUelismo. mem- 
bronim cujusqvic pcriocli, ita ut in duobus plerumque mcmhris 
res rebus, verbis verba, quaai demensa et paria respondeant.' 

From this passage came the term parallelismus 
membrorum, which has since then been generally 

• Compare with this the more detailed discussion in the Pre- 
liminary Dittsertation to Lowtli's wortta on Isaiah, 1778 [German 
by Koppe, 1779 ff.l. 

employed. We have to do here not with a formal 
contrivance like rhyme, assonance, alliteration, 
regularly changing length of the lines (cf. the 
dactylic distich), but with a connexion by means 
of the sense, which finds its full expression only in 
parallelism, and, at the same time, in parallelism 
separates itself from what precedes and what 
follows. Lowth continues quite correctly— 

* Qu88 res multos quidera gradus habet, raultam varietatem, 
ut alias accuratior et apertior, alias solutior et obscurior sit ' ; 

but by distinguishing three kinds of parallelism, 
synonymous, antithetic, and synthetic, as well 
as by the very name ' parallelism,' which was 
capable of being misunderstood, he contributed at 
the same time to encourage too narrow a con- 
ception of the phenomenon.* Nor is it any ad- 
vantage to complete the scheme, as H. Ewald 
in particular has sought to do ; all this has 
only a casual value as compared with the general 
principle established, that the individual stichoi, 
which themselves each form a unit of sense, com- 
bine in the verse to form a larger unit. The 
possible variety of relation between the stichoi is 

A wider background for this phenomenon has 
lately been gained by observing that the same 
rule holds good in the poetry of the ancient Baby- 
lonians and Assyrians, and, perliaps in a less de- 
veloped form, also in that of the ancient Egj'ptians. 
Schradert assumes that Israel took over this prin- 
ciple, along with much else, from Mesopotamia, 
and Briggs [op. cit. p. 368) also considers this 
extremely probable. Still the possibility remains 
that this poetical rule is the common heritage of a 
large group of the nations of antiquity.J 

It is radically wrong to see in the parallelism 
merely a rhetorical phenomenon, and to disregard 
it accordingly, as need may be, in conducting metri- 
cal investigations. In this way one overlooks the 
fact that the parallelism is founded on the previous 
separation of the stichoi. It is possible, of course, 
to take the sense-parallelism and apply it. to a prose 
composition, at the same time dispensing with a 
uniform separation into lines, and in this way to 
weaken it down to a purely rhetorical form, but, 
when coupled with that separation, the parallelism 
assumes the character of a fixed device of art. 
The best proof of this is found in the circumstance 
that for nearly 2000 years men felt and recognized 
the Psalms and other poetical portions of the OT 
to be poems, without having any clear conscious- 
ness of the device employed to constitute them so. 
It is a specially happy providence that this device 
is so connected witfi t^je contents that it had practi- 
cally to be handed down along with these. 

* Still the distinguishing: of three possibilities has a certain 
logical value. In the unpublished second part of the present 
writer's Akadaniaclu'. AntrUtucvrtesuiig, 1873 (cf. SK, 1874, 
p. 764, Anm.), an attempt is made to explain the parallflismiu 
by goinf; back to the word S^o as a term for poetical discourse. 
If this Heb. word means originally 'comparison, likeness,' 
bipartition and parallelism find their ground in the nature of 
the case. Tlie result of a comparison may be one or other of 
three kinds. It may disclose (1) equality or resemhlance, e.g. 
Pr 102*5 lllfi- 22.30^ (2) inequality, unlikeness, or opposition, e.g. 
J»r 101-25, (3) a more or less, a better or worse, etc., by which a 
movement, a progress is given, e.g. Pr 12a i.-iie. 17 los 171 191^ aa 
also 11^1 1511. There can be hardly any doubt that the parallel 
verse exhibits its {greatest independence and purest development 
in the various apophthegms of Pr 10 ff., which all fall imder this 
threefold scheme. The circumstance that, at least in their 
written form, these belong to tlie later products of Hebrew 
liter.iture, is certainly no adequate objection to the view put 
forward in the above-cited lecture, that the funfhmu-ntal rule for 
the form of Heb. poetry is borrowed from the apophthegm. Yet 
it is so hopeless a task to reach any prol>abIe ]>ronouncement 
regarding these first beginnings that the present writer is no 
longer disposed to maintain that former view. 

t His article in the Jahrb. f. prot. Tluol. i. (1876) p. 121 ff., il 
still well worthy of study. 

I Cf. W. Max Miiller,' Die Liebegpoeeie der alten jEgypter, 
1899, p. 10, Anm. 1. 



d. Metre: the Kinah and other kinds of verse. 
— Fium «li:il lius jusi been s;iid, it is selievident 
that tUe length of the tines is not a matter of in- 
diU'erence. These must be fashioned in a certain 
uniform relation to one another, in order to pro- 
duce the impression of rhythmic units. The sure 
proof tliat the Heb. poet consciously fixed the 
length of the lines is found in the circumstance 
that for a special occasion that presented itself in 
the life of the people he uniformly chose a special 
length of line. 'J'liis is establislied in the case of 
the .ij'iJ. the Hebrew lament for the dead, i.e. the 
songs which women as mouiners (ni:;ipo Jer 9") 
Bang at funerals in ancient Israel. These were 
uniformly composed in verses of two members, the 
length 01 the lirst of which stands to that of the 
second in the proportion of 3:2, givin" rise to a 
peculiar limping rhj'thm, in which tlie second 
member as it were dies away and expires. These 
verses are very shari)ly distinguished from the 
others, in which equal length of verse-members in 
the same verse is the rule. For proof of the cor- 
rectness of these observations the present writer's 
art. 'Das hebriiische Klagelied ' in ZAllV, 1882, 
pp. 1-52, may still suflice, if it be read with care. 
It will not do either to unite the two unequal 
stichoi into a single ' long line,' or to pronounce it 
a matter of inditierence whether the longer line 
comes (irst or last.* Equally established bej-oiid 
all doubt is the original connexion of this kind of 
verse with the popular lament for the dead. 
When Briggs (op. cit. p. 381) says, 'there is no 
propriety in the name,' and, further, supposes that 
the name was given to it bj- the present writer 
' because apparentl}' he lirst noticed it in the Book 
of Lamentations,' the one remark is as mistaken 
as the other. The second of the two merely proves 
that Briggs has not followed our argument, which 
is founded rather upon the fact that the projihets, 
whenever the}' introduce the mourning women 
speaking in [jersoii (Jer g's-a* 38"-), t or when they 
themselves in their symbolical actions assume 
the rOle of the mourning' women (Am 5', Ezk 19, 
etc.), uniformly this mea-sure.J The objec- 
tion that David does not employ it in his lament 
for Saul and Jonathan (2 S l""-) can be urged 
only bv one who holds that David meant to 
take the place of the mourning women at the 
obsequies, or to attach himself to their lamenta- 
tions. And when Grimme (/'ye. cit. p. 549) suggests 
that the earliest employment of^ this measure 
should rather be sought i'or in the oracles of the 
priests, not only must we lirst wait for proof that 
the ancient oracles were composed in it,§ but must 
ask, further, which was the earlier in Israel, the 
funeral or the oracle, and whether it is likely that 
this form of verse was originally learned by the 
mourning women from the lips of the priests as 
they pronounced their oracles, to be afterwards 

• lioth these ttiin^ have been done recently by Griiniiic 
(ZV.Va, laSHi, p. ;,t:<l.). The examples he adduces in justi- 
fication of his prot'edure appear to us to be altogether in- 
ftdequate. Some of them are due to faulty scansion, in others 
& false length is (fiven to the lines by a wrong division of the 
context, somt; arc cit*d from a corrupt uneinfiuiwl text, others 
are to lie explained in wcordance with ZATW ii. p. 7, No. 3. 
No agreement seems possible between the present writer and 
Orinniie, for not only would this necessitate the acceptance of 
the metrical system of the latter, but Grimme's ' fUnf-hebiger 
Vers' is sometiiing quite different from the kinah verse. 

f Cf. y.A TW, )bi.t, p. '.'TOtf. 

: Grinmic {ZD.MG, 18117, p. CM) declares that one might as 
well assert that the Greek hexameter is uroperly a uiouniing 
strain because it is in it that the women lament for the dead 
Hector. Yes, no doubt, were it not that the rest of the Iliad 
»lso is written in hexameters. In the same place he seeks to 
prove that Jer 9*-!** is wholly comiwised in the Ifiwth me.isure, 
out his argument breaks down completely. Only 8^-9^ was 
originally an independent poem in Ibis measure. 

8 The examples which (irimme (XllMH, ls;i7, p. 707 f.) brings 
forwartl and scans exactly (Gn 26^ 27'^^ ^"^ ) may be, according 
to his system, pentameters, but thev have nothing whatever to 
do with tlie 'mourning verse' Doted by the present writer. 

copied from the women by the prophets. Woman 
is the most conservative of all social forces, and if 
even at the present day in an Arab nnrsery the 
kinah verse is still to be heard from the lips of the 
mother (as reported by Snouck-Hurgronje), there 
is nothing more probable than that in this a re- 
collection has been preserved of a time when it 
was par excellence the verse of women. * 

But now that it has been thus shown that in 
one particular case Hebrew poets consciously fixed 
the length of their verses and shaped it accord- 
ing!}', we must conclude that in the case of other 
verses (or lines) as well they had a clear conscious- 
ness of one or more ditterent lengths. And, as a 
matter of fact, examination shows that throughout 
wide tracts the individual lines have the usual 
length of the member of the kinah verse ; 
amongst others this is by far the predominating 
length all through the Book of Job. Elsewhere 
we may observe a longer line than the prevailing 
one, something like double the length of the 
shorter kinah line. 

e. The scale for the lines. — But although one 
cannot avoid recognizing the facts just mentioned, 
it yet remains a very difficult task to determine 
the male by which the Heb. poet measured the 
length of his lines. Here comes in the attempt 
to establish a metrical system for Heb. poetry, 
which during the last centuries has again and again 
attracted amateurs and scholars. The theories 
put forward as the basis of this system exhaust 
all the possibilities that are to hand, and at the 
present day almost all of them still stand unrecon- 
ciled side by side. Some have counted, marked 
quantity, accented, or combined the hrst or llie 
second of these processes with the last. Others have 
taken now the syllable and now the word as the 
fundamental unit. Others have sometimes been 
content to take the traditional pronunciation with 
the vocalization and accentuiition, and to inter|irct 
metrically, and reduce to rule what lies before us 
in the iIas.soretic text. At other times, upon tlie 
ground of a fixed theory, all liberties with the text 
have been considered allowable, the accent h:is 
been shifted, the vocaliz;ition altered in whole or 
in part, and changes of the consonantal text pro- 
posed to a greater or less extent. Systems have 
been constructed, which leave much licence open, 
licence partly of a purely arbitrary kind and 
partly in strict subordination to the .system ; there 
have been other systems, again, which permit no 
deviation to the right hand or to the left, but 
yield metres carried through with the utmost 
rigour. Space forbids our going into all these 
manifold attempts, nor does the require it.t 
We must coniine ourselves to a brief description 
of the most important of the sj'stems put forward 
at present, indicating at the satiie time the ditli- 
culties involved, and wo shall fin.illy draw a number 
of conclusions whose probability we believe it 
neces-sary to maintain. 

J. Leyt operates with the word-accent. Every 
word that conveys an idea has a tone-syllable, 
certain words may have more than one. Every 
tone-syllable forms, along with the jireceding un- 
accented syllables and the following syllable of 
the falling tone, one metre. The number of un- 

• For the later history of the kinah measure in the OT cf. the 
present writer's art. 'The Folk-Song of Israel in the mouth of 
the Frophets ' in The. .\ew World, l»l<:i. p. 2S ft. 

t Cf., for the earlier attempts, Siuilschutz, Von der Form dcr 
heh. /'ortfw, 1825 ; Iludde, ' tJel>cr vermeintliche metrische 
Formen in der heb. Poesie,' in .S'A*. 1874 ; Briggs, General Itxtro- 
duction, i>. 361 ff. All the modern systems are fullv explained 
and criticised in Ed. Konig's SUlittik, lUtetorik, Poetix, etc., 

I GritndzOfje de» lihythmu^, def Verf- und Strophenlaues in 
der heb. I'otiie, 1S75, lieitJiuUn if.r Melnkderheb. fottie, 1887, 
and a great number of articles in various periodicals. Ley has 
constantly sought to perfect his system. 




accented syllables makes no difference, so that a 
signiticant word of a single syllable may have the 
same metrical value as a whole series of syllables. 
The kind of verse is determined by the number 
of such metres, as pentameter, hexameter, octa- 
meter, decameter, and, further, assumes a much 

freater variety of forms through the possibility of 
ivers cjesuras. The unit ('verse') for Ley (1887) 
is the verse formed by parallel lines ; the cjEsuras 
serve to divide the individual lines from one 
another. In this way it becomes possible to iinite 
lines of very dillerent lengths in the same verso. 
Ley accepts the traditional vocalization and accen- 
tuation, but has lately proposed a moderate number 
of changes of the text. 

G. Bickell * applies the Syriac metre to the OT, 
holding the next to the last syllable, as in Syriac, 
to be as a rule the tonic one, and frequently 
altering the vowel-pronunciation. He counts the 
syllables of each line, and then makes rises and 
falls interchange with perfect regularity, in such 
a way that all lines with an even number of 
syllables are trochaic, and all w-ith an odd number 
iambic. He everywhere ends by carrying through 
with the utmost exactness the metre assumed, and 
in order to reach this result proposes numerous 
alterations on the consonantal text, when the 
liberties taken ^^•ith the vowel-pronunciation prove 

H. Grimme t bases his system upon a new theory 
of the accent and the vowels, which above all 
attributes to the vowel-signs a very different value 
from that assigned to them on the doctrine held 
in other quarters. He thus abides by the tra- 
ditional written signs, but understands them quite 
differently. His metrical system is at once quan- 
titative and accentual. It is quantitative, because, 
in accordance with an ingeniously carried out 
system of 'morcB,' he attributes to each syllable 
and to each syllabic beat a definite quantity, a 
definite number of ' morce ' (Lat. mora, ' lapse of 
time,' 'stop'). Every final principal-tone syllable 
of a ' Spreclitakt ' counts as a rise ; whether other 
syllables are to be reckoned rises or not is deter- 
mined by counting, according to fixed rules, the 
value of the 'moroe' of the syllables which fall 
within the same sphere. The number of rises 
determines the species of verse. Grimme recog- 
nizes verses (i.e. hues) with 2, 3, 4, 5 rises, but the 
verse with 2 rises occurs only as an accompanying 
metre to that with 4 and 5 rises. Grimme, like 
Ley, is relatively sparing in the matter of changes 
of the text. 

All the above systems are worked out with 
extreme care, and in the opinion of their authors 
leave no unexplained residuum. The earliest two 
(those of Ley and Bickell) have each found many 
adherents, the third is yet too recent to have done 
so. Still, in the majority of instances, perliajis 
even without exception, the declarations of ad- 
herence given in by other writers have regard 
merely to the acceptance of a metrical system 
and to principles, but not to the complete systems 
elaborated by their respective autliors. Tims 
C. A. Briggs, the principal English-speaking 
champion of Hebrew metre, declares that his 
views 'correspond in the main with those of 
Ley.' I A similar attitude towards Duhm (i.e. 
Bickell) is assumed by Cheyne.§ As a matter of 

• ilHrice* bibtica regula ez^mplis iUustratce, 1S79, Carmina 
veUris tt'jstain^nti trntrictt 16S2, and a great number o( later 
publications in which he introduces many changes and im* 
provemenls on his earlier attempts at samsion. 

t 'Abriss der biblisch-hebriiisuben Mctrik,' in ZDMG, 1S!>0. 
pp. S2S>-5S4 ; 1897, pp. 68»-712, etc. ; c(. his book <SrnmizU>ie der 
heb. Accent- und \ ocaitehre, CoUectaoea FriburKensia, fasc. v, 
Freiburg i. d- Schwciz, 1S96. 

I General Introduction, p. 370, where at the same time an 
account is given of Brig}^* earlier metrical coutributiona. 

S In Haupt'a SBOT,^ huuab,' p. 78. 

fact, in these systems the leading possibilities are 
represented in such a way that everyone will feel 
himself more or less in sympathy with one view 
or anotlier. 

The circumstance that theories so diametrically 
opposed are able time after time to maintain them- 
selves side by side, and that each of them can be 
held up as the infallibly correct one, is due to the 
peculiarly unfavourable conditions under which 
we have to work in this matter. («) We have to 
do with a text originally WTitten without vowels, 
and whose livin" sound was first marked at a very 
late period by additional points and lines. One is 
entitled to question tlie correctness of this vowel- 
pronunciation and accentuation, and there will be 
a disposition to draw the boundaries of this in- 
correctness nanower or wider according to the 
needs of a metrical system, irithout its being 
possible for an opponent to adduce conclusive 
evidence in favour ot the contrary position. (6) It 
is equallj' certain that the consonantal text of the 
OT has suffered seriously, not only through mis- 
takes but frequently also through conscious well- 
intentioned editing. Since the latter was always 
undertaken from religious points of view and 
would have little regard to the artistic form of 
the poems included in the collection of Sacred 
Writings, its employment must have been fraught 
\vith specially serious issues in the sphere with 
which we are dealing. Here again it is impossible 
to set objective limits to the changes which, upon 
the ground of an assumed metre, may be proposed 
with a view to the restoration of the original text. 
But, on the other hand, a metrical system which 
finds an easy application to the traditional text, 
including all the disfigurations it has under- 
gone in the course of time, only shows by this 
that it is itself untenable, (c) Finally, all in- 
formation about the music of the ancient Hebrews 
has been lost to us. But music was originally 
always combined with poetry, and protected the 
metrical form, just as, on the other hand, it helped 
what was defective.* This aid, too, we must 
entirelj- dispense with. 

Under such conditions subjectivity finds here 
an open field without any sure boundaries. But 
this awakens the imagination and fires the courage. 
Besides, we have here to do with a subject akin 
to mathematics, a subject giving scope for playing 
witli numbers. It is a fact perhaps too httle 
observ'ed, that all departments of study akin to 
this oH'er a special incentive to the ingenuity. We 
need only recall the subject of Clironology. One 
must have at some time gone deeply for himself into 
the question of Hebrew metre and triumphed over 
the temptation to lose oneself there, before he can 
understand the attraction wielded by such specu- 
lations. Since the present writer has had this 
experience he has no finished metrical system to 
oiler, nor can he attach himself unreservedly to 
any of the others that have been proposed, al- 
though lie cheerfully concedes that to each of the 
above-named champions of metre we are indebted 
for much stimulus and help. He can therefore 
merely indicate what he considers probaljle, and 
empha.size some points which appear to him worthy 
of attention. 

(1) As regards the scale for the length of the lines, 
the vastly preponderating probability appears to 
belong to the theory of Ley, wlio counts the 
'rises' without taking account of the 'falls.' In 
favour of this there is first of all the practice of 
vowelless writing, with irregidar, in olden times 
doubtless very sparing, introduction of the vowel- 
letters, as contrasted with the regular employment 

• Cf. W. Max Miiller, Liebfspofgie der aitcn ^-Etrt/pter, p. 11 : 
'We, scanning Epigoni, forget only too often that the losi 
melody woa the main thing.' 




of these for the long vowels in Arabic. An exact 
niciisuremcnt of a verse by syllables eoulii hardly 
have been carried out with such a method of writ- 
ing, and, conversely, if it came into use, it must 
in course of time have brought about a correspond- 
ing transformation of the writing. Further, great 
weight must be laid upon the circumstance that 
the lines {stichoi) in Hebrew are without exception 
separated from one another by the sense. Where a 
perfectly exact, rigorously self-asserting system of 
metre is used, in course of time the separating of 
units of sense into single lines comes to be regarded 
as superfluous, and tlie sense Hows over from one 
line into another. We may compare, for instance, 
classical hexameters or ode-measure, and modem 
rhyming verse. The same view is favoured if we 
compare the Bab.-Assyrian and Egyptian poetical 
methods which, so far as one can yet see, are 
likewise to be brought under the above rule.* In 
general it may be added that a comjiarison ought 
to be made neither with extremely relined systems 
like the classical, nor decaying ones like the 
Syrian, but with primitive systems, even if these 
stand ethnologically far apart. The two-membered 
alliterative verse of the ancient Germans, which 
likewise takes account only of rises, api)ears to us 
to present the closest analogy, when, that is to 
say, it is looked at from the purely formal point 
of view, and without regard to the peculiar device 
by which the lines are connected. 

(2) As regards t/te non-accenting or the accenting 
of icords, much latitude must be conceded to the 
living language and to music, so that it would be 
very difficult to lay down strict and inviolable rules 
according to which this or that word is under certain 
circumst.inces to be non-accented or accented. In 
this way verse-members which appear to the eye 
very uneiiual may yet from the rhythmical point 
of \'iew be counted of equal value.t 

(3) We have, moreover, no certain guarantee for 
the intention to carry through with perfect uni- 
formity the measure which in general rules in a 
poem. It is possible that it was considered legiti- 
mate to admit at times a line with four rises be- 
side one with three, and conversely to introduce a 
whole verse with a diilerent length of line, or finally 
to put a verse of three lines alongside of others 
with only two. On this whole subject cf. what 
W. Max Miiller (op. cit. p. 11) has established for 
Egyptian, and Zimmem (ZA xii. 382) for Baby- 
lonian poetry. 

(4) In general, one receives the impression that 
in the older poems greater freedom rules than in 
the later oncs.t An unemngly regular parallelism, 
exact counting of the rises in verses of uniformly 
identical construction, all this is, nearly without 

• For the former cJ. H. Zimmem, ZA viU. 121fl., x. Iff. ; for 
the latter W. Jlax Miiller, Vie fAi-bcupopsie d«r alien jfSgi/ptcr, 
1899, p. 10 ff. Whether, in this elate of things, the actual 
relation of the falls to the rises can be reduced to suuunary 
formula) is another question. This \s'ill depend mainly upon 
the structure of the particular lan^iia^e. Tlius Ziinmern now 
(XA xii. 3S2(T.) thinks he can budd the Bab. poetic rhythm 
practically upon the foundation of the loniciui a mirwri. liut 
when the result is to obtain in all six dilTcrent feet odniist^ible 
in the same verse, when from one to three falls are possible 
bet^^'ecn two rises, when occasionally (cf. Schiipjting, iv. 4, 
p. 8310 two more falls are elided in accordance with an 
assumed licence, there is certainly enough of field-room, Zim- 
mem (p, 38;i) tells ua that Sievers has succeeded in 'provin(f' 
the existence In Heb. poetry of a pronounced * uniform rhythm,' 
Since his observations for Bab^vlonian are based upon work 
carried on in conmion with Sievers, and be several times 
emphasizes the a^jreement between it and Hebrew, the above 
remark aa to Ziminem's scheme will probably hohl good also 
of .Sievers' observations on Hebrew, with which the present 
writer has not yet made acquaintance. 

t Uf. for instance in the Old Oenn, poem Udiand v,22 with 
T,& or v.*, or the two halves of v.89 or v,»ii' with one another. 

t W. Max Miiller (op. <n<. p, 10) says rit'htly: *To me it is a 
very suHpicious circumstance that the .Sont; of Debondi and the 
latent Psalms sUll continue to be measured tn mxe and the aaine 

exception, the mark of later poems. The gap was, 
no doubt, lilled up by music, which always accom- 
panied poetry in early times, whereas in later 
times learned scansion with the pen in the hand 
and without regard to musical sound appears to 
have been the rule. But, on the other hand, one 
is entitled to make stricter demands on lyrical 
poetry in the narrowest sense, especially on dance- 
songs such as jierhaps meet us in Canticles, than 
on longer didactic poems like the Book of Job, 
which can hardly at any time have been sung. 

(5) The more decided and sharply cut any par- 
ticular measure is, the more conlldently may this 
be used as a medium for restoring the text. Thus, 
for instance, one may undertake the work of 
textual criticism on the /rina/i-measure with surer 
results than in the case of an eveuly-llowing 
measure, because the peculiar limping form of 
the kinah must have demanded closer attention on 
the part of the poet. In any case, we should do 
well, in all textual criticism which deals with 
anything beyond superfluous expletives, to fissure 
ourselves of strong support on other grounds be- 
sides metrical, and not repose too much confidence 
in emendations based on metrical gro\inds alone. 

(0) Finally, it must always be Kept stea<lily in 
view that the quality and the effect of poetry are 
still in by far the majority of instances secured 
for the texts by the parallelism, even where 
regularity in the measure is not carried out. 
Hence one must guard against assigning too great 
importance to metrical regularity. 

f. Strophes. — We must deal more briefly with 
the use of strophes, i.e. larger formal units em- 
bracing several verses. The first to put forward 
a s])ecial stroi)he-theory was Fr. Koster in hia 
article, 'Die Strophen oder der Parallel ismus der 
Verse der heb. Poesie,' in SK, 1831, pp. 40-114. 
Ilis example was widely followed, and, long before 
the stricter verse-theories were put forward, the 
division of the OT poems into strophes of lengths 
more or less equal or artistically interchanging 
was prosecuted as nothing short of a pastime. 
The results correspond exactly to those described 
above (])p. 6 and 7") in the case of verse-theories. 
The variety of conclusions and the contradictions 
between them are perhaps even greater in this 
instance than in tliat. Here too in varying 
degrees may be seen mere strophic arrangement 
of the material received from tradition, alternat- 
ing with a re-shaping of the text based upon a 
settled theory ; great irregularity alternating with 
the strictest attention to rule ; simplicity in the 
form obtained alternating with the extreme of 
artificiality ; recognition of the jiarallel verse as 
the basis of the strophe alternating with accept- 
ance of the line as the fundamental unit, reach- 
ing even to the denying and destruction of the 
parallel verse, etc. At present, in addition to the 
before-named leading upholders of diilerent verso- 
theories, who also all put forward a special stroiihe- 
theory, the most ])rominent place is occupied by 
D. II. Miiller, with a most ingeniously worked- 
out stro]ihic system b.ised upon three fundamental 
priiKi]>les — the rcsputisio, the roncntcnatio, and the 
iricluaio.* In opposition to the line followed by 
him, a disposition at jncscnt prevails, following 
the lead of Bickoll, Duhm, and others, to rest 
content, wherever possible, with the simplest 
strophic framework, consisting of four lines, equal 
to two \'erse3 each of two parallel members. 

That Hebrew poetry has a strophic arrangement 
is generally taken for granted as self-evident. The 

• Die Projihftm in Hirer urspriingHchfn Form, 2 vols., 
Wien, ISOO, StropJii^nltan und RegjMjnsion, Wien, IS'JS, MiilleKe 
system has been adolitcd and contributions made in support of 
it by F. Perles. Xtir neb. Ulrophik, Wien, 180C, and J, K. Zenner, 
Die Chorgeaiinge im Buche der t'sabnen, 2 parts, Freiburg L B, 



ii;^lit to make this assumption is open, however, 
to serious question. It scarcely needs to be proved 
tliat there is s\ich a thing as poetry that makes 
up verses but not stroplies. But in tliis ease tlio 
postulate of strophes is already satisfied before- 
hand. For the parallel verse is really a strophe, 
a higher unit produced hy the union of smaller 
units, the lines. No metrical forms are shown by 
experience to resist more the reduction to a 
stropliic formation tlian such double structures 
which have an inward completeness of their own. 
It may sultice to remind the reader of the two- 
menibered alliterative verse of the Old German 
poetry and the dactylic distich of the Greeks and 
Komans. Upon this ground one may not, indeed, 
be able to dispute the possibility of strophes of a 
higher order, but in all probability these will form 
the exception, and parallel verses without any 
further union will be the rule. 

Further, the strophe-theory finds, at all events, 
no support from traditiun. In particular, the term 
n'jD (appended 71 times in the Psalms and in Hab3) 
cannot be urged in its favour. Xo significance 
attaches to the so-called alphabetical poems, a 
species of acrostics in which the letters K-n are 
made to succeed one another at the opening 
of sections of equal length. These prove, as was 
emphasized above (p. i'^), the presence of stichoi 
(in Pss 111, 112), but nothing more. If we can dis- 
tinguish the single stichos, we can also count, 
according to the length designed for the poem, 
two (Pss 25. 34. 145, Pr 31">-3i) or four (Ps 9 f . 37) 
stichoi, and, if the /iiwnA-measure is an established 
fact (cf. La 3, where each verse bears a letter, but 
each letter is repealed three times), we may include 
two (La 4) or three (La 1. 2) of these verses under 
a single letter. At most it may be said that the 
verse as a unit is witnessed to when in Ps 119 the 
same letter commences eight successive verses of 
two lines each. But this is yet a long waj' from 
the same thing as a strophe of eight verses or 
sixteen lines.* 

It is generally left entirely out of sight that any 
new metrical unit miLst lia\e a new formative 
medium. No one thinks of proving the existence 
of the latter. True, indeed, one framework of this 
kind is occasionally to be encountered in the OT, 
namely, the recurring verse or refrain. It must be 
admitted that this is in a high degree adapted to 
mark off strophes, especially when, as in Ps42f. 
(42*- " 43'), at regular intervals it interrupts a 
sharply defined measure in the other verses by a 
dillerent structure of verse. With always diminish- 
ing strength and imi)ortance the refrain occurs, 
further, in Pss 80. 40. 39. 57. 59. 49. 99. 56. 62. 67. But 
even if one were disposed to assvime and carry 
through a fixed strophic structure in all these 
poems, upon the ground of the refrain, after all 
only about a dozen of the hundreds of Heb. poems 
would have been proved to be strophic, while the 
conclusion regarding the others must at best be to 
the etlect that they are not constructed strophically. 

As a special basis for the division into strophes, 
it is the custom simply to fall back everywhere 
upon the contents. A metric strophe is supposed 
to coincide with a section constituted by the sense, 
the sup|)Osition being that the poet divided his 
material into sections whose length, in virtue of 
certain rules, showed a rhytliniical correspondence 
with one another. This assumption, however, is 

• A device or a precisely similar kind has lately been shown to 
exist in the Bab.-Assyr. literature {ZA, x. 1ft.). Kvery Hth 
time the same syllable stands at the commencement of a two- 
inemt)ered verse, and the initial syllables of 25 sections each 
of 11 verses form a connected sentence. Yet Zimniern does 
Dot think of taking each of these lon^ sections as a stroptie, but 
concludes that every two verses make a stroplie (of 4 lines), 
and that the 11th verse always stands by it.self. It may be 
modestly asked whether each verse should not rather be taken 
by i lai If and the strophic structure ^iven up. 

all the harder, since the contents have alrcadj 
done their part in the formation of the parallel 
verse. Not only so, but this verj- parallelism gives 
to Heb. poetry in general the impression of aphor- 
isms linked togetlier, and renders it extremely 
difficult for the poet to exhibit a finely-articulated 
strictly progressive development of thought. Still 
the possibility of the nearest and easiest approach 
to this may be conceded, namely, that a single 
repetition of the parallelism, combining two verses 
of two lines, might fall rhythmically upon the 
ear, and that at the same time an idea seemed 
to exhaust itself in two parallel verses. * Deeper- 
reaching divisions of tlie sense could scarcely 
succeed in striking the ear as rhythmic units. 

On the other hand, it is equally true that the 
theory of strophes is not to be refuted by postu- 
lates ; the evidence of facts must decide. But any 
one who has convinced himself from the literature 
of the subject what finely artificial structures, 
with ever new forms, have been successively 
proved to underlie the same poems, and after being 
long forgotten have their place taken by as 
artificial successors, will not waive his right to a 
radical scepticism on this subject. The charm of 
playing with numbers makes itself felt here al- 
most more strongly than in the instance of verse ; 
and the results, the more artistically these work 
themselves out, as in recent times those of Muller 
and Zenner, make their impression much more, 
being carefully printed, upon the eye, than upon 
the ear. The following .sentences may serve for 
guidance and caution in this sphere of inquiry.t 

(o) Under no conditions must the search for 
strophes lead to the abandonment of the certainly 
ascertained unit, the parallel verse, as has been 
frequently done [e.g. by Uelitzsch, Merx, Diestel). 
Never must the end of a strophe break up a verse, 
and the verse, not the stic/ios, must remain the 
measure of the strophe. 

(/3) A great risk incurred by the search for 
strophes is this, that in their favour the setise of a 
poem might be divided wrongly and thus the poem 
receive a wrong interpretation. The endeavour 
should be to get first at the sense and its pauses, 
and then to ask wliether strophe-like forms are the 

(7) We must not obstinatelj' persist in carry- 
ing through rigorousi}' a division which upon the 
whole is uniform, such as that into four lines. The 
possibility is not absolutelj- excluded that it was 
considered legitimate to interrupt tliis uniformity 
occasionally by verses of two or of six lines. This 
practice is assumed by Zimmern for l!ab. poetry 
(cf. p. 7* footnote *), and, as another instance, it 
may be frequently noted in the Old Germ, poetry. 
Hence we must be cautious in the way of excis- 
ing or of adding lines and verses, upon the ground 
of the strophic measure. 

(S) Conversely, a succession of sections of the 
most varied extent are not to be called strophes, 
by a misajiplication of a term which denotes a 
rhythmic whole. This practice has been frequently 
followed, and is so still. J 

(e) We must not demand strophes everywhere, 
but must, in the first place, make a distinction 
according to the ditiercnt species of poetry. That 
dance-songs such as are found in Canticles should 
be strophic is not indeed necessary, but is ex- 
tremely probable ; that the Book of Job should ex- 

* Cf. the Otfried strophe of the Old Hii,'h Germ, poetry, 
which consists of two rhyminjf couplets. 

t Cf. earlier statements of the present writer's views in 
ZATW, I'^-l, p. 4»Pf.,and Aden du gixikine Conijrtt interna- 
tional den Orientatistet^, L.eyden, 1884, p. 9:if. 

I Thus C. A. Bri^'t's (op. cit. p. 30!)) cites, as 'a fine speci- 
men ' of Old Ej;ypt. strophe-formation, a poem whose twenty 
strophes exliibit the following number of lines : 12, 14, 8, 7, l:i, 
8. 1), 11, 9, 15, 14, 9. Ul, 5, 11, 13, 10. 6, 10. 13. So we find 
Strophes of from 5 to 18 lines ranged side by side t 



2 4 a^d l'?42f For here the equiponderance is 

leira".uU.:n"oo nmch and doabt wJl be more 
prudent than blind conlidence 
^ 6. Subordinate matters of ^o™- -f, '^'f v"t 
^-pH ^^ the other lliin-s we liave spoken of, 
)~U y been claimed as a mediun. employed 

Slal^^dUions-'used to ^l-te a partu^u^^ar 

tlov nent of rhyme for poet.eal purposes 
^!rrU«enerallpdnutted, rhyme n^ver beca^ne 


\P1 (cited by Sommerf and Ps 6 (cited by Urig.s) 

^y serve, altl'ousl' i" "'^'""^'^ '"^''^"'^^ '".Ce 
Znie satisfactory ^throughout. Here and there 

1 1 poet himself may have been conscious of t 

and thus indulged in a «I'f '"tf ° , t;^ s^earS 
in rpilitv the occurrence of rhyme lias scartLi^ 
^nv more si "nilicame than attaches to J Chot/.ner s 
rp>,'n JaS 8, issl) collection from the OT of a 
& series of the linest dactylic hexame ers In 

devices All these phenomena receive exhaustu e 
tatment t the DisLrtation of I. M. Casano.icz. 
Paronumasia in the Uld Fc^t., Boston, lbJ4. 

That tinullv, Hebrew, like other languages, has 
in a er'tain nlasure its peculiar poetical vocabu- 
Ury and g-rannnar is a matter of course, but can be 

U era ure of iBracl the drama is wlidlv want.Mj^ 
Thi^ necuUarity it shares with the whole Senui.c 
U era ure Xreas in that of the Indo-Germanic 
neon es the drama three times over sprang up 
nuie fresh and independent from the germ, 
r lelv m n ian, Greek, and German soil Uus 
^m l^r "l s be set down to a certain one^suledncss 
X i po on, a want of obiectiviiy on tl.e part of 
H,e sr>i c^ The belief, to \.e sure, has often been 
^M:;;:^ Ulat precisely the OT itselfjonns an^ 
edition to this rule, and that it contains two 

tion of lyric (in fact, marriage) songs ;+ in the ca*e 

. C, tor early times O. 8o"™«^„Sf ^ ^I'THtIT- 
KlncrUacomm. i. AT. xvll. (lb«») p. x..fl. 

of the latter it is based upon a false dehmtion of 
the dmma • It is only in chs. 3-41 that the hook 
of Job s disposed as 1 dialogue. a"d this dispos.- 
UonU shares with the majority of . Plato s pl.Uo- 
sophical works, which no one thjnks it necessary on 
that account to caH dramas. N ay, the =^\<'^^^ ,^" ' 
bcinning to end follow the method of < ':''"S ^>- 
whe easin Jobthe whole actwn, from which the 
dian.a lakes its name, is givea in narrative lorm in 

''''l."ur'ther,'L. Diestel (art. 'Dichtkunsf in Sclien- 

^,,Vsmi.Lexicon, i. [1869] p. GO-J) femes that 

anywhere in Semitic literature eai. he y.«. be 

found any more than the drama. Ihi. ''•'^ t 'nn 

been shown to be incorrect, as on Bab. -A>.sj i lan 

soil .,u te an extensive epic literature, whose con- 

tc Its' are mvlhological. has been found composed 

in uoe ic form. But for Heb. poetry, so far as this 

i" rep escm^^^^^ in the OT, Diestel's contention re- 

mains true The OT enshrines a small number of 

too ieal poems or fragments of ^^'^^^^ r%!f^ 

simcetoname the Song "\ ^^'^^t^^lm tT, 

but this is lyric, not epic, poetry. 1 ss lUo-lu- are 

nuite secondary productions, versihcalion of the 

a cient pomdar ^listory for purposes; 

thev re li auies, not epics. The J ewish works ot 

& of later times, the Books of I uth Jonah 

FsthM Dn 1-Ot are wholly in prose. The strongest 

evUcnce is uriished by the narrative proper m the 

look of Job the so.calfed prologue anA >;l"logue '" 

chs 1 2. 42. Although It IS praclicaUy ce tan 

t at these were borrowed from the "'"'f "^ ''\"^ 

people ^ and are thus no secondary work but an 

'ovi"! mi o e composed in the form current among 

thl^ people for such subjects, these passages a e 

Tit en^in prose, although th s '« """^"-^''^ '" > 

, r if one will, has the breath of poetiy. thtj 

"luire a°so w tl other narrative passages the char- 

re-ard'these intermingled lines of verse as the 

V;; remnants of an originally poetic compositiom 

\Ve ma rather find here an indication tha poeti> 

hld^Ath the Hebrews a wholly subjective, t.^- 

V c t ii -e but that it was n<,t n use for objective 

M,\c^'lcsc^l tion. We must reckon with this fact, 

«' hout ii g able to oiler any.sull cient exp lana- 

); ,, of it Perhaps, however, in this matter the 

on nl Semitic te.'.dcncy is uPon the side ot he 

Hebrews, the exceptional development upon that 

S ch e^consider to be the state of the case, am 
C A Bri-'s alone appears to come toadi eiei.t 
^ondusro,^''But even when he represents Jo la.ii s 
fable(J-'J''-'»)-to take the most extensive iluaia- 
t?on-as writ en in metie (see his metrical division 


.0, the P--nt^tcr'a Co^uiienUo; on ^^J^^^^^^H^;: 
nandkomm. ii. 1 (18""': P;,"''^ Lcii.zii;, Teubner, Jahru-. 


inclml.nK even the Bk.oJob^l»>-I[ . ^^^ dn.nmtM- 


; Cf. above, p. S"". , 

set. Hvulde.Comm p.vull. 

~rr:'i:^ri^So:Uwe n..,t ..^ «.ma,„. 




nanatives (P'b in Gn 1 and J's in 2'-4), as well 
as the two forms of the story of the Flood 
(Gn 6-8), are declared to be poetical passages, 
luetricaliy composed (Briggs, op. cit. p. 559 f.), 
this gives rise to a new, otherwise unheard of, 
state of things. Before any examination of these 
passages, the objection lies to hand that one cannot 
see why then Gn 9 and ll'-" are not to be regarded 
as poetical, and, most pertinently of all, ch. 5, 
the Sethite table which forms the transition to 
tlie story of the Flood. But when one looks more 
closely at the passages in question, it becomes 
plain that the wnole doctrine of the form of Heb. 
poetry, as explained above, must be radically 
transformed before these narratives can be forced 
into metrical forms. We find them dominated 
neither by stichical division nor by parallelism. 
Nothing 18 proved by the circumstance that here 
and tliere the tone of the language rises and takes 
a certain poetical llight, or that here and there a 
few lines are capable of scansion, or that the re- 
lation between certain clauses may claim the name 
of parallelism. In reality the primitive history of 
botli sources ( P and J ) is, so far as the form is con- 
cerned, not otherwise constructed than the follow- 
ing history of the patriarchs, etc., and is trans- 
mitted to us as history, not poetry, just as strictly 
as that is.* The conclusion, then, holds that the 
poetically composed epos as well as the drama is 
wanting in Hebrew literature. 

Accordingly, only one of the leading varieties of 
poetry, the earliest and the simplest of them, was 
cultivated in Israel, namely the lyric. At the 
same time it must not be forgotten that a secondary 
variety of this, namely gnomic poetry, which we 
might call 'thought-lyric,' likewise attained to a 
rich development. 

B. Tbe Employment of Poetrt.—¥ot the 
sake of brevity, we shall seek here to combine 
as far as possible a sketch of the history of OT 

f)oetry with a schematic survey of the poems that 
lave come down to us. Only the folk-poetry of 
early times needs to be handled in any detail ; the 
other survivals of Heb. poetry will be found treated 
of in this Dictionary in separate articles. 

1. Folk-Poetry.— this is everywhere the oldest 
form of poetry. Poetry as an art never makes its 
appearance till later epochs. The saying of J. G. 
Hamann (1730-1788), ' Poetry is the mother-tongue 
of the human race,' which was more fully expl.iined 
and established by his pupil J. G. Herder (1744- 
1803), and has in recent times been emphatically 
asserted especially by Ed. Reuss (cf. Herzog's ME^ 
V. [1879] p. 671 f.), finds everywhere its complete 
justification. Poetry is in point of fact older than 
prose ; all tbe most ancient utterances of dill'erent 
nations are couched in poetry. One may lay down 
the rule: in the case of a primitive j'Cople all dis- 
course tluit is intended for publicity or for tnemorial 
purposes will be found clothed in a poetical form. 
To tliese two categories belongs everything of a re- 
ligious character, and it must be borne in mind 
that in the life of ancient peoples much that 
appears to ns secular bears the stamp of religion. 
In this way poetry has its home in Israel as else- 
where : — 

(a) In family life. — \\Tiat specially come into 
view here are the wedding-song and the lament 
for the dead. Of the former of these we possess a 
whole collection of fine specimens, which, tiianks to 

SrNni ' and there came out Are and devoured.' By the way, 
Grimme (ZDMO, 18n7, p. 612), too, represents Jothani's fnble 
as written in verae, although he (fives a somewhat different 
arranjfenient of it. 

• It appears to us that Bripgs is in (general inclined to draw 
too liplitly the boundaries of poetical form, confusint,', as he 
does, rhetorical and metrical forms. This remark applies also 
very specially to many NT passages to which he gives a metrical 

a mistaken exegesis, found their way into the Canon 
of the Sacred Writings, in the book wliich is called 
in Hebrew d'Tbh iV and, in English, Canticles or tlie 
Song of Solomon. Though these songs are of late 
origin, yet they will have preserved, as genuine 
folk-songs, the quality of early times with e.ssential 
fidelity. A contrafactumf of the wedding-song 
of oldiT days is exhibited by the prophet Isaiah at 
the beginning of his Parable of the Vineyard (S'"-}- 
— Of tlie lament for the dead we possess only 
contrafacta, applied to historical persons and per- 
sonifications, first in the mouth of the prophets and 
then in the Book of Lamentations (chs. 1-4). See 
fuller details on this point above, i. B 2 d, p. 5. 
In the case of lamentations for the dead, women 
alone were the composers and the performers (nusipp, 
ntorn, Jer9'^),who sought to increase their collection 
of dirges and handed down their art by instruction 
(v.i*). At weddings, on the other hand, j'oung 
men and young women seem to have contended for 
the pre-eminence.J From the official lament w-e 
ought certainly to distinguish exceptional cases 
when an accomplished friend might dedicate a 
eulogy to the dead, such as has come down to us 
in David's fine lament for Saul and Jonathan (2 S 
I"*-)> in<i in a lament for Abner of which at least 
a few lines have survived (2 S 3*"-). Whether it 
was the custom to use songs to celebrate other 
important events and festivals in the family life, 
such, for instance, as weaning (cf. Gn 21") and 
circumcision, we have no means of determining. 

(6) In the life of the community. — That even the 
industrial life of the Israelitish farmer and nomad 
was interpenetrated with song we may assume 
without further question. Examples are thinly 
scattered. From the earliest times we have the 
Song of the Well (Nu 21"'-).§ From the life of the 
agriculturist Is 65* has preserved some words of 
a vintage blessing. Harvest songs, too, may be 
taken for granted, in view of the harvest feasts 
and the proverbial joy of harvest (Is 9*), and per- 
haps the feast of sheep-shearing (1 S 25''"'', 2 S 
13^*') had also its special songs. If our interpreta- 
tion of the difficult text Jg 5" is correct, the 
rehearsal of songs is presupposed even there as 
part of the shepherd's life. People did not like to 
be made 'the subject of verse' (W^, cf. Is H*, Mic 
2", Hab 2") or ' of music ' (.irjJ, cf. La 3", Job 30», 
Ps 69'-). Hence the ' taunt-song ' must have been 
much in vogue. Even for early times its use is 
not to be denied, while for a later period a short 
specimen of quite a unique kind has been preserved 
in the song upon the forgotten courtezan. Is 23'°, 
which sounds as if it belonged to the category of 
drinlcing-songs mentioned in Ps 69'^hut presupposed 
also in Am 6° and 2 S 19^. At least no banquet 
proper (Wf'?. avixirbaiov) can well have been with- 
out music, including songs. It is not necessary to 
suppose, indeed, that on such occasions only pro- 
nounced drinking-songs were sung ; rather will 
the want have frequently been met in early times 
by national songs. A special class of composers 
and singers, whose services were called into requisi- 
tion on such occasions, is named in Nu21" (G''?Y~n). 
By this Hebrew name we are to understand a 
guild of ' travellinj; singers,' rhapsodists such as 
flourished in ancient Greece and on German soil, 
who not only had a rich repository of national 
saga and heroic poems, but also treated their 

• Cf. Budde, ' Das Hohelied' in Kuner Bdmmnu 

t This is the name applied to the church 8on'.;s of the close 
of the Middle Ages, which were composed in iniit.ilion of the 
measure, melody, and words of familiar secular songs. 

J Cf. the description, for modern Syria, by Wetzstein (Zttchr. 
/. Ethnol., 1873, p. 287 ff.). 

§ For evidence that this is not a properly historical poem, 
but a song such as it was customary %o sing at the discovery 
of new springs in the desert, as well as for an attempt tfl 
restore its original form, see Budde in The Hew World, 1895 
p. 130 ff. 




audience to songs of a more or less wanton or 
frivolous character. At the royal court ' sinjiing 
men and singing,' women' are taken for granted 
as part of the regular personnel ('J S 19"). To 
the category under consideration belongs also 
the single certain ancient trace of gnomic poetry 
which lias come down to us, namelj' Samson's 
riddle (Jg 14'^), along with its solution, and 
Samson's reply in v.'". Such displays of wit may 
liave heen much in vogue as ' social games ' at 
merrymakings. That, along with these, proverbs 
and wise saws also had wide currency among the 
people we may take for granted. iJo doubt the 
collection of these in tlie Book of Proverbs dates 
from later times, but all the same this may em- 
body very ancient material, altered or not, as the may be. The oracle, wliich under the title of 
' the last words of David ' interrupts the conte.xt in 
2 S 23'"", must have a late date assigned to it ; 
the saying of Jahweh about Moses in Nu 12°'* 
appears to have been before the mind's eye of the 
writer. Another example of the same species is 
found in the words of Samuel in 1 S IS*"- It must 
be addeil that all three of the last cited passages 
tend to pass over into the following divisions — the 
religious, the national, and the projihetiual. 

('■) In the religious life. — In the lirst place it is 
extremely probable tliat the &Tu:\e.Dt priestly oraelc, 
where it did not simply, by the casting of the lot, 
give the answer 'yes' or 'no' to tlie question put, 
was couched in verse. A classical example is 
furnished by Gn 25^, an oracle, indeed, whicli 
beliings at the same time to our next division. 
Likewise for the cultus proper we have examples 
that are both ancient and certain. These are, in 
tlie first i)lace, the Aaronic blcssin^j (Nu G^''"), then 
t/ic formula; pronounced at the taking up and the 
selling down of the ark of J" (Nu ](>"'•),* and 
finally Solomon's words in dedicating the temple 
( 1 K 8'^'-), which must be supplemented and restored 
after the LXX (8"). How far the religious service, 
i.e. in particular the sacriticial actions, was even 
in ancient times embellished by special songs, 
cannot now be determined. All that have come 
down to us emanate exclusively from the temple 
at Jerusjilem in post-exilic times, as far at least as 
the form in wliicli they now lie before us is con- 
cerned. But as surely as the religious gatherings 
were joyous feasts (Dt 12"- "• '*), with equal cer- 
tainty may we conclude that even in early times 
music and poetry must have assumed their rttle at 
these, whenever any sanctuary obtained a name 
and a brilliant equipment, find considerable bodies 
of worshippers came together. 

((/) In tlie national life. — Here we may distin- 
guish the state of rest on the one side, and of 
activity, i.e. war, on the other. To the lirst 
category belong the extremely numerous etdogislic 
and denunciatory sayings in which a people cele- 
brates its own qualities and its superiority to other 
peoples ; or sci)arate divisions or groups of a 
|)eople may express their own distinctive character- 
istics. This species of poetry is extraordinarily 
widespread and everywhere highly developeu, 
but most of all amongst Israel's relations, the 
ancient Arabs. It may exhibit all degrees, from 
empty unmeaning braggadocio up to the hnest and 
loftiest poetical utterance'. 1m the < )T it begins with 
the boastful song of Lamech^dn ■!-"•), which occnre 
in tlie primitive genealogical table inherited from 
the Kenites (pp), and is a genuine type of the 
original form of this species as found in the mouth 
of a small tribe. Then come the sagings of Noah 
(Gn !)"■■"), in which Israel (zv) m.iiiitains its 
prestige over against the wealthy I'lmnician (nr) 
and the slave Canjian (I";3). Here for the first 

* Cr. further, Acte» du dixiitns CongrU de OrUntalista^ ill. 
lUydco, IWU), p. 180. 

time this species clothes itself in the form of the 
' ble.ssing,' in which, suitably to the quality of our 
sources, which look at everything from the ip- 
ligious view-point, it meets us in by far the 
majority of instances. The characteristic of his 
half-brother Ishinael is defined by Israel in tlie 
words put into the mouth of Jahweh in Gn 10'"-, 
which can hardly have retained their original 
form. So Israel states his relation to his twin 
brother Edom in the oracle of Gn 25^, aiul separ- 
ately for each in the double blessing of 27^''^ and 
v.»"'-, very much, of course, to the prejudice of the 
brother. The more extensive oracles of Balaam 
(Nu 23'-"<'- '8-S4 243.a. is-ajj^ which show indications 
that they have undergone several expansions, 
make glorious promises to I.srael, in contrast to 
Moab, and even, further, to other nations. But 
this species shows its finest development in the 
two poems in which each of the tribes of Israel has 
its dignity and its sjiecial quality assigned to it in 
relation to the other tribes, namely the Blessing 
of Jacob (Gn 49) and the Blessing oj Hloses (Mt'i'i). 
It is by no accident that these two oracles have 
been put into the mouth of these two jiarticular 
men, for .Jacob is the fleshly and Moses the 
spiritual father of Israel, and they alone can pass 
judgment upon all their sons. The Blessing of 
Moses presupposes the Blessing of .Jacob, and on the 
basis of the altered relations brought about by time 
(perhaps in the first half of the 8th cent.) gives it 
a new form. Thus, then, from the two sources, 
J and E, the older and the younger compositions 
are taken over. The older, the Blessing of Jacob, 
may have been compiled from sejiarate sayings 
that were current aljout the different tribes. The 
self-consciousness of the tribe in which the finished 
poem took its rise, namely Judah, at last gave the 
general tone to the whole. Numerous sayings of 
the same kind, characterizing towns and hamlets, 
meadows, and clans, must have been current. A 
relic of tliese has survived in the now sorely muti- 
lated saying about the city of Abel-beth-maacah, 
2 S 20'8';. 

The principal specimen of the real historical 
folk-song is tlie fine Song of Deborah, Jg 5. This 
attaches itself closely, at the same time, to the 
preceding specie.s, being as it is a ]ioem in which 
praise and blame are distributed, from v.'- on- 
wards. First of all, praise is given to Deborah, 
who by her recruiting-song has called to the 
battle, and then to Barak as the commander (v."). 
This is followed by an enumeration of the tribes 
who jjut in an appearance (v v. ""'■''"), with censure 
and ridicule of those who kept at a distance 
(%'v. ""'""). Next a tribute is paid to the valour of 
the tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali (v.'"), the city 
of Meroz is cursed (v.^), while to the Kenite 
woman Jael is awarded the palm for the greatest 
deed of personal heroism (v.-'"'). We have here, 
at least from v.' onwards, the primitive mode of a 
sung tliat grew up in the life uf the n.-ition as a 
whole. Via are directly reminded of the distribu- 
tion of the rew.ards of victory after the battles of 
Plala\a and My kale. Of other war-songs we 
possess only fragments (Nu •Jl'"--'-*', Jos 10'*') 
or very brief extr.acts compressed into a single 
verse, such as the Song at the Pus/iage of the Red 
Sea (Ex 15-'), and that which was sung in honour 
of Said and David when thci/ deflated the Philis- 
tines (1 S 18"'). Similarly, tlie substance of a song 
of triumph over Sain.ion is put into t lie mouth of the 
I'hilistines in Jg lO-'"-. Un the other hand, it is 
clear that the Song contained in Ex IS''" is a lato 
composition in I'salm style, expanded from the 
short v.'" and really meant to take the place of 
this ; and in like manner David's triumphal song 
in 2 IS 22= I's 18 is a late insertion. 

As a feature of the real life of ancient times it ii 




to be noted that in Ex 15-' as well as in 1 S 18*'- it 
is the women, or rather the maidens, who meet 
the returning warriors with songs, and the same 
custom is presni)i)osed in Jg IP', in the story of 
Jephthali. Among the Arabs at the present day a 
victory is still followed by a sword-dance, pei- 
formed by a maiden to the accompaniment of a 

It is an extremely important circumstance that 
Nu 21'*, according to the note wherewith it is 
introduced, is derived from nin- m^n'rs 1:1, the Book 
of the Wars of Jahweh, i.e. of the wars of Israel, 
which, as sucli, are the wars of Israel's God (cf. 1 S 
25'^). We have thus to do here with a collection 
of ancient war-songs which already lay before the 
ancient historian as a source, and thus to a cer- 
tainty mark tlie beginning of writing amongst the 
Hebrews. Side by side with this source we read 
in Jos 10'^'' of a icn isd or Book of the Upright, 
from whicli v.'-""" is said to be cited. From it, 
accordinj; to 2 S 1'*, is cited also David's laincnt 
for Saul and Jonathan, no less than Solomon's 
words in dcdi'-ating the Temple, according to the 
LXX of 1 K S'"^, where iv ;3i/3\t(j) t^s ijJ5^s = ts'? "ie?3, 
and the last Heb. word is doubtless corrupted from 
"vf'jt. Here, then, we have to do with an ancient 
song-book, which contained more than war-songs, 
and whose composition, or at least completion, 
must be brought down as far as the time of Solo- 
mon. We have no room to complain that more 
of the contents of these two books have not come 
down to us, when we consider that Charlemagne's 
collection of Old German songs has been com- 
pletely lost. 

2. The Poetry of the Prophets. — That the pro- 
phets availed themselves of poetical composition is 
self-evident from the first. For their utterances 
were intended for publicity, and, as time went on, 
more and more for being treasured in the memory, 
while at the same time the prophetic movement 
grew out of the pojiular soil, which was com- 

f)letely saturated with poetry.* The prophets 
lave accordingly not swttered to escape their 
notice any of the manifold forms of poetry that 
unfolded themselves in the midst of the people. 
At the same time, thanks to the great variety of 
entrances u])on the scene made by the writing 
pro]>liets of literary activity more extensive 
remains have come down to us, we must, even in 
the matter of poetical form, distinguish a number 
of possibilities which show a marked divergence 
from one another. 

(a) The prophet may adopt the poetical forms 
current in other social circles, and come forward 
himself as a poet, thus playing a .strange part, as 
in the extremely frequent [jrophetical laments (ef. 
above, i. B, d), or the isolated marriage-song. Is 5"- 
(cf. above, ii. B, a). liul, even apart from these 
special cases, later prophecy has a special fondness 
for interrupting a proiilietical address by songs, 
whether these are sung by tlie prophet himself, as 
happens with special fre(iuency in Deutero-Isaiah, 
or are put into the mouth of other persons, as 
liappens repeatedly in Is 24-27, and as has been 
done by a redactor in Is 12. In all these instances 
the language necessarily follows the laws of strictly 
poetical composition, because it attaches itself to 
lixed forms taken as a model. 

(b) The projihet may communicate Divine oracles, 
which he has himself received. Here again strict, 
measured form is natural. 

(c) The nronhet may speak in his own name, 
taking for nisba.sis, and expanding. Divine oracles. 
Uetwixt these last two possibilities the threat mass 
of prophetical passages continuallj- oscillates ; and 

• Cf., for the ori(iin of earlier and later prophecy, the present 
writer's American Lecturea, The Heligion of Jgrait to the Exile, 
New York and London, Putnam, 1809, Lect iii. and iv. 

transition occur, in which it is imposiibla 
to draw the boundaries sharply. 

((/) The prophet maj* himself tell of his entrance 
upon olHce and what happened in connexion with 
it, such as the conversations he held. To this 
category belong, for instance, the accounts of 
visions such as we have in Am 7fl'., the appear- 
ances beheld by an Ezekiel or a Zechariah, etc., 
but no less tlie experiences of Hosea (chs. 1-3), not 
to .speak of the little Book of Isaiah, whose kernel 
is the .story of the prophet's meeting with king 
Ahaz (6'-9''), and some things related of Jeremiah 
(e.g. 18'"-). 

(c) Another author may tell about the prophet in 
such a way that the latter becomes the hero of the 
story. In such instances it is relatively indifl'erent 
if occasionally it is the prophet who speaks of him- 
self in the third person, but this is scarcely a likely 
contingency. To this last category belong Am T'""', 
Is 20, and in a much less degree chs. 36-39, but, 
above all, large sections of the Book of Jeremiah, 
particularly from ch. 26 onwards. If these last- 
named sections at last expand into a life of Jere- 
miah, n.ay, into a history of his times, if Is 36-39 
was mainly taken from a popular work of history 
and a|ipended to the older Book of Isaiah, it is 
evident that we have now reached the sphere of 
prose pure and simple. But even in these sections 
there are prophetical discourses which by a stretch 
may be said to lead us back to the realm of poetry. 

Besides, personal endowments must be taken 
into account. One might have the full conscious- 
ness of a call to the prophetic office and yet be no 
born poet. Then it might happen that at one 
time the prophet would put on the unwonted poetic 
harness and go earnestly to work for a while, only 
to relapse presently into heedlessness, while at 
another time he would disdain to use it at all and 
would employ prose. Something of this kind may 
be observed, for instance, in Ezekiel. 

Under such conditions the literary form in the 
prophetic writings continually vacillates to and fro, 
and we meet also with transition forms betwixt 
prose and poetry, which it is difficult to class with 
certainty. The possibility of a careless treatment 
of poetical rules, giving rise to an imperfect type 
or mixed species of discourse, is open to Hebrew sis 
well as to an}- other language, nay, it lies nearer 
to hand in it than in many other languages. The 
stichic structure only needs to be neglected for the 
disco\ to flow on with tolerable freedom from 
restraint, while the parallelism is retained as far 
as possible and by its peculiar undulating progress 
always m.akes itself felt. Grimme {ZDMG, 1897, 
p. 0S3f.) is wrong, then, when he rejects in tola 
the idea of a 'rhythmic prose'; the dilemma by 
which he attempts a reductio ad absurditm of it 
is not co"ent for those who do not accept his 
system. His argument fails in particular to do 
justice to the parallelism of the thought. For 
an analogy to the above-named mixed species, we 
may compare our own doggerel verse or rhymed 

For the prophetical books, then, a sliding scale 
must be adopted, with many indefinable transi- 
tions. The poetical form will be most strictly 
observed in the cases described above under [a) 
and, a little less, (6) ; the prophet himself will move 
with more freedom in those included under (c) ; the 
instance tited under {d) will give ample scope for 
the intermixture of prose ; finallv, in the case 
prose will be the form started witli, which will only 
occasionally make waj- for poetry. Details would 
be out of place here. 

3. Artistic Poetry. — To this category belong in a 
certain sense the whole of the poetical books, for 
these were all either composed or collected in full 
view and with clear consciousness of their artistic 




form. Tliis took place, without exception, in Inter 
post-exilic times. But at the same time there is 
scarcely one of tliem wliicli had not its roots in the 
ancient folk-poetry. Along with lyiio poetry, the 
friiome and the Wisdom literature occujiy the 
forefront in this arena. 

(a) Lurk Poetry.— (\) The Song of Songs.— This 
belongs, as was pointed out above (p. lu), wholly 
to the realm of folk -poetry. It is a collection 
of popular wedding - songs, belonging to a late 
period. But it owed its retention in the Canon 
simply to the circumstance that it was taken 
to be an e.\tremely ingenious allegorical poem 
with a religious meaning, and that its author 
wa.s assumed to be Solomon. It is not an impos- 
sible suggestion that, because of this conception, 
the book underwent here and there editorial re- 
vision.* See, further, art. Song of Songs. 

(2, The Book of Lamentations. — Here, truly, 
poetiy as an art rules, till artiliii.'ility is reached in 
the alphabetic arrangement. Hut this art is based 
on the employment by the projihuts of the popular 
lament for tlie dead, and is an imitation ot the 
latter. A higher degree of art than that found 
in chs. 1. 2. 4 is present in cli. 3, which is meant 
to be, as it were, a central peak between the other 
chapters ; ch. 5, again, is popular, and alien in 
subject and form from tlie rest.f See, further, art. 

(3) The Psalms. — In this collection we have to 
recognize the Temple hymn-book of the post-exilic 
community, the religious lyric with artistic de- 
velo|)ment. Only in a single instance has a secular 
.song strayed into this company, namely Ps 4.5, 
also a wedding-song, but one of quite an artificial 
chfiracter. More frequent is gnomic poetry, 
although with a decidedly religious application; 
cf. e.g. Ps 1. But even here the i)Opular basis is 
not wanting. In its purest form this meets us in 
the collection known as the Pi!r/rim Songs, I'ss 
120-137. Psalms outside the collection proper are 
found in Hab 3, which exhibits the same Kind of 
titles and technical terms as meet us in the Psalms ; 
in 2 S 22= Ps 18; in 1 S 2'-'<' wrongly put in the 
mouth of Ilannali ; further, suitable to the situa- 
tion are Ex lo'™ (ef. above) : the Song of Moses, 
Dt 32; Is 12. Perhaps also Nah 1 was originally 
an alphabetical psalm (see art. Nahum for a de- 
fence of this view). In the .so-called Psaltns of 
Sulmnon (which see) there has come down to us, 
although only in the Greek language, another 
small collection of p.salnis from the 1st cent. n.c. 
The title 'Psalms of Holomon' exjaesses nothing 
more than that they are secondary, as compared 
with the canonical l^salms, which as a whole are 
attributed by tradition to David. 

On the titles found in the Book of Psalms see 
art. Psalms, p. 153 ff. 

(6) The. ]Vis(lot.% Literature.— (\) The Book of 
Proverbs unites in W^rnM finomic poctnj of the most 
diverse kinds and with the most varying degrees of 
development. The basis and the kernel (chs. 10- 
22", also chs. 2.")-29) are supplied by the two-line 
imishdl, which in form and contents is certainly 
the oldest structure of this species, and in its 
origin is distinctly popular. To this were appended, 
towards the end, more elaborate species, a|>oph- 
thegms expres.sed at greater length, enigmatical 
and numerical sayings, and finally (31"'"-") an 
alphabetical eulogy of the virtuous woman. At 
(he I cginning of the book (chs. 1-9) we have a 
I'nnnected series of pa'dagogical - philosojvhical 
didactic discourses, in which Wis<loni and Folly 
personified are introduced. l'"or details see art. 


(2) The Book of Job is based upon a popular 

• Of. the present writer's Comm., p. utf. 
t Cf. KuTZer Udcamm, 

story, and gives to the problem raised in this a 
new turn which it carries artistically through the 
conversations of chs. 3-42*. The form adopted is 
essentially the same as is found in Pr 1-9, but the 
l)oet has succeeded in giving to this a lyric move 
ment throughout, and has even cast the dillcrent 
speakers in so plastic a mould and kept them so 
well apart as to give rise to the appearance of a 
dramat;ic performance (cf. above, p 9). Be>ond 
any doubt, the Book of Job is the highest product 
of the poet's art to be found in the OT. It brings 
to a focus, as it were, all that Ileb. poetry could 
contribute, and stands out as one of the noblest 
poetical compositions of any age, or any people. 
See, further, art. Job. 

(3) Qoheleth. — This book takes its place as a 
counterpart to Pr 1-9, as a philosophical didactic 
poem, but has an essentially dilferent point of 
view. P.elonging to a very late period, it does not 
stand high poetically; both language and verse- 
structure leave much to be desired. See, further, 

(4) To the same species belongs the Book of 
Sirach. This is proliably older than Qoheleth, 
it stands higher as regards language and form ; 
from the religious standpoint it is more valuable, 
if less original in its views. It concerns us here 
because recently a considerable part of its contents 
has been recovered in the Hebrew (see 
Sirach). With this book we may brin^ our survey 
to a close. K. BUDDE. 

POISON (.iin hemd/i, 5 times, Dt 32-'^-^, Job 6*. 
Ps GS-* 140» ; axi ro'xh, in Job 20'" ; LXX Ov^6i 
except in Ps 140', where it is ibi as in NT ; Vulg. 
indiqrmtio Job 6*, caput Job 20'", furor Dt 32-'', 
Ps 6i\ vcnenum Dt 32^, Ps l40-\ Ko 3", Ja .3*).— 
The commonest signification of licmdh is fury oi 
the heat of anger, in which .sense it occurs over 
100 times in the OT. In some of these passages 
the ideas of anger and of poison are united, as in 
Is51"■^^ where the cup of tjod's wrath is spoken 
of; see also .lob 21"", Jer 2.5", etc. Luther trans- 
lates 'fervent lips' of Pr 2I>'-^ by gif tiger Mund. 
The Greek word flu/t6s likewise primarily means 
that part of human nature which is affected with 
passion or anger. The Hebrew idea is therefore 
that poison is a substance which causes fatal heat 
and irritation, and in nearly every instance in the 
OT the material referred to is tlio venom of ser- 
l.eiits or scori)ious; see Dt ,32-J-^, Job 6* 20'", Ps 
.3S' MO'', and in the NT Ko 3'^. 

Six species of poisonous snakes occur in Pales- 
tine, Vipera Euphratica, V. Ammodyte.t, Dabnia 
xanfhina, Echis arenicoln, Nn.ja Hnje, the hooileil 
cobra common in the southern border countries, 
but not often found in tlie cultivated tracts ; 
and Crrristes I/nssc/qui.'.tii, the horned viper, very 
comirion, and often found lurking in hollows of 
the ground. Tristram has seen it in the im[irints 
made on soft ground by camels. The Israelites 
were therefore well acciuainted with the ell'ects of 
poisonous wounds intlicted by these, as well as by 
the scarcely less dreadeil centipedes and scorpions. 
In Kgy|it poi.son was likewise cbielly associated 
with serpent bites. In the Book of the 1 >ead 
(c. 149, 1. 2711'.) the poison of the serpent litwk 
is called shinnl, whicli comes from a root which 
also means to be hot, or to produce fever. 

The natives of the neighbouring countries had, 
like most races of savage or semi-civilized man, 
learned to utilize this poison to render their darts 
and arrows more destructive. This was an ancient 
jiraetice (cf. Udij.s.scy, i. 2t)l ; Soph. Trarhiiiite, 
.")74), and it is referred to in Job (i^ This u.sage 
has shown itself in the change of meaning in tlie 
word Tofiit6s, possibly in that of Ws, although 
it is now generally held that in its Homeric sens"' 




fts an arrow it is connected vdth the Sanskrit 
ishtis, while in its Sophoclean sense as a poison, 
' etra ((lOLvias ix9pa.t ix^Svi/s Us,' it is related to the 
Sanskrit vishas. 

The poison of insect bites is mentioned directly 
in Wis IG' and implicitly in other passages. The 
•word ro'sh occurs 11 times, but is usually trans- 
lated 'gall' ('venom' in Dt 32^, 'poison in Job 
20", 'hemlock' in Hos 10^). It was most probably 
a poisonous plant, and one which communicates 
its bitterness and poisonous properties to water 
(Jer 8" 9") ; but in the absence of more definite 
information it is not easily identified. Perhaps 
the poppy is the plant indicated (see GALL in vol. 
ii. 10-4), but the grapes of gall of Dt 32*' are most 
probably the fruit of Calotropis procera. 

Metaphorically, the influence of evil speech is 
said to be the deadly poison of that unruly evil, 
the tongue, Ja 3*. The forked tongue of the 
snake was believed to be the darter of its venom 
before the structure of the poison fangs was 
known ; cf. Job 20'* ' he shall suck the poison of 
asps, the viper's tongue shall slay him.' 

The administration of poison internally for 
suicidal or homicidal purposes is not mentioned 
in NT or OT. In 2 Mac 10" there is, however, 
one instance given — that of the suicide of Ptolemy 
Macron. Poisoning and sorcery were, as they still 
aie in savage and semi-savage countries, closely 
connected in ancient times and in the NT. Sor- 
cerers are called (papfiaKol, as in LXX Ex 7" 9'' 22'* 
and eight other passages, as well as in Rev 21* 
22" ; and sorcery is ipapijjxKia in Gal S"'. Sorcery 
in the OT is, however, more directly connected 
^vith incantation, as implied by its root ips. See 
Magic, vol. iii. p. 210. Josephus (Ant. XVII. iv. 1), 
in describing the death of Pheroras, says that the 
Arabian women were skilful in compounding 
poisons ; but the art of poisoning was in ancient 
times much more commonly employed among Indo- 
European than among Semitic peoples. 

In the appendix to St. Mark's Gospel (16'*) one 
of the promises made to 'those that believe,' is 
that if they drink any deadly thing (6av6Lciii6v ti), 
it shall not hurt them — a promise which, accord- 
ing to Papias (ap. Eus. HE iii. 39), was fulfilled in 
the case of Joseph Barsabbas. 

The word ' poison ' in English is borrowed from 
the French poison, which originally meant a potion 
or remedy. In the Roman de la Eose, L 2043, it is 
thus used — 

* Car ^ Bais par quel polaoa 
Tu seras tret & gariBOQ ' ; 

but from the 13th cent, it has been nsed in English 
in the sense of a deadly drug. See the passage 
in Langtoft's Chronicle, where he describes the 
administration of ' puson ' to Ambrosius. This, 
though written in a sort of French, is the work 
of an Englishman ; see also Britton, ed. Nichols, 
i. 34, where the word is spelled ' poysoun.' 

For notes on the history of poisons in ancient 
times see Schulze, Diss, sistens toxicoloqiam veierum 
plantas venenatas describentem veteribus cognitas, 
Halse, 1788. A. Macalister. 

POLE. — The brazen serpent was displayed upon 
a pole (Nu 21*- • AV, the only occurrence of the 
word 'pole' in the Bible). The Heb. is Dj (LXX 
<niij.€toy), which appears to mean primarily ' a flag- 
staff,' and is used in a transferred sense for the 
banner itself. KV tr. 'standard.' See, further, 
art. Banner. 

POLL.— The poll (of Tent, origin, Scotch pmv) is 
the head, especially its rounded back part. Thus 
Shaks. Hamlet, IV. v. 196— 'All flaxen was his 
poll ' ; and Bacon, Essays, p. 122, ' Not the hundred 

poll will be fit for an helmet.' The woid is thenc* 
used in very early English for the person, as Piers 
Plowman, B. xi. 57, 'Pol hi i)or = individua!ly. 
A poll-tax is a tax on each person, and a poll oi 
polling is a census or record of persons. The 
subst. is used in AV only in the phrase ' by the 
poll' (Nu 3") or 'by their polls' (Nu p-ie-so-a 
1 Cli 23S- »). Cf. Shaks. Coriul. III. iii. 9— 

' Have you a catalogfue 
Of all the voices that we have procured 
Set down by the poll?" 

The Heb. word is always n^S^J gulgolcth, which in 
the places where it is rendered 'poll ' as well as in 
Ex 16'^ (AV ' for every man,' AVm ' by the poll or 
head,' RV 'a head') and 38== (AV 'A bekah for 
every man,' AVra 'a poll,' RV 'a head') means 
the nead or the person in counting, taxing;, etc., 
but elsewhere means the head as severed from the 
body (2 K ^, 1 Ch 10'»), or the skuU as broken 
with a stone ( jg 9"). The idea in the Heb. word 
as in the Eng. is roundness.* 

To 'poll the head' is to make it look more 
rounded by cutting oil" the hair. The expression 
occurs in 2 S 14*'"- (Heb. [nV;] in Piel, usually tr. 
'to shave') and Ezk 44-" (Heb. cc|, its only occur- 
rence); and 'to poll' by itself in Mic l'*"'Make 
thee bald and poll thee for thy delicate children' 
(Heb. 113, usually to 'shear'). Cf. Wyclifs (1388) 
tr. of Job 1=" 'Thanne Joob roos, and to-rente his 
clothis, and with poUid heed he felde doun on the 
erthe ' ; and 1 Co ll' (1380), ' Forsoth ech womman 
preiynge, or prophesyinge, the heed not hilid, 
defoulith hir heed : forsoth it is oon, as yif sche 
be maad ballid, »oWjV/, or clippid.' 

In Jer 92« 25=^49^- RV chau-es 'that are in the 
utmost comers' into 'that have the corners of 
their hair polled,' in accordance with AVm. See 
Hair, vol. iL p. 284'. J. Hastings. 

POLLUTION.— See Purification. 

POLLUX.- See DioscmiL 

POLYGAMY.— See Marriage. 

POLYTHEISM.— See God, and Idolatet. 

POMEGRANATE (l^iri rimmon, p6a, granatum). 
— There can be no doubt of the identity of this tree. 
Its Arab, name, rummtln, is plainly of the same 
origin. Its botanical name is Punica Granatum, 
L., of the order Granatece. It is 10-15 feet high, 
with oblong lanceolate deciduous leaves, a woody- 
leathery top-shaped calyx, five to seven scarlet 
petals, very numerous stamens in several rows, 
and an ovary with two tiers of cells, three in the 
lower and five in the upper tier. The fruit is apple- 
shaped, crowned by the lobes of the woody calyx, 
yellowish or brownish, with a blush of red, and 
contains very numerous angular seeds, siirrounded 
by a juicy pulp. It grows wild in N. Syria and 
possibly in GUead. The fruit is of two varieties, 
the sweet and the acid. The pomegranate ia 
repeatedly mentioned in the ^Coran as one of the 
trees of Paradise. It is constantly alluded to in 
Arab stories. 

The Scripture allusions to the pomegranate are 
also frequent. The spies brought pomegranates 
(Nu 13-^). The Israelites in the wilderness of Zin 
(Nu 20°) lamented the pomegranates of Egypt, 
along with its figs and vines. Moses, in recounting 
the good things of Canaan, did not forget them 
(Dt 8"). S.aul abode under a pomegranate tree 
(1 S 14^). Solomon compares the temples of his 
bride to a piece of the fruit (Ca 4*), and her whole 
person to an orchard of them (v."). The beautiful 

• Thia perhaps explains the name Golootha, ' the place of a 
«kull,' Mt 273S, Mk 1622, Lk 2333 (UV), Jn lit". 




flower is alluded to (6" 7"), and the juice or wine 
as a beverage (S-). The withering or barrenness 
of this tree was a sign of desolation (Jl 1'-, Hag 
2"'). The fruit was embroidered (Ex 28=^), and 
sculptured (1 K 7"*, etc.). It was also sculptured 
on the Egyptian monuments. It is mentioned in 
Sir 45'. Nuiiierovis places were named from this 
trte, as Uimmon (Jos 15'-), Gathrimmon (21"), 
En-rimmon (Neh 11^). The pometrranate is as 
extensively cultivated and as highly prized now 
as in ancient times. The beautifully striped pink 
and crysUil grains are shelled out, and brought to 
table on plates. The acid sort is ser^-ed with 
sugar. Rose-water is sometimes sprinkled over 
the grains. The juice of the acid sort is sweetened 
as a beverage, and also used in salads. The rind 
is used in tanning. It is also a powerful anthel- 
mintic, principally against the tape- worm. A 
knife useil in cuttin" the rind turns black, as does 
also the section of the rind, from the formation of 
tannate of iron. G. E. Post. 

POMMEL (from Old Fr. pomel, dim. of pomme ; 
Lat. ponium, an apple) is the tr. in 2 Ch i'^'*- " of 
n'='3 qullah, which in the parallel passage, 1 K 
7"'<"»- *-, is tr. ' bowl.' RV gives ' bowl ' in 2 Ch 
also. The reference is to the ' bowl- or globe-sliaped 
portion of capitals of the two pillars in the temple ' 
(Oxf. Heb. Lex.), so that po?«m«/ (which like the 
Hel). word contains the idea of roundness) is not 
unsuitable. Wyclif uses the word, not only of the 
round end of the handle of a sword, but of the 
whole handle, Jg 3^ ' the pomel (1388 ether hilte) 
folwide the yren in tlie wound.' In Pr 25" (1388) 
he uses it in the orig. sense of an apple, ' A goldun 
pomel (Vulg. mala aurca) in beddis of silver is he 
that spekith a word in his time.' 

J. Hastings. 

POND.— See Pool. 


PONTUS (ITivTos) was a name used in a vague 
and loose way to designate certain large tracts of 
country in the north-eastern part of Asia Minor 
adjoining the Black Sea (which was often called 
by the Greeks 'the Sea'). Originally, the name 
■was applied to all or any part of the Black Sea 
coasts ; and the Attic orators regularly use it of 
theTauric Chersonese (Crimea) and the Cimmerian 
Bosporus ; * and comparatively late writers also, 
such as Trogus, Diodorus, etc., sometimes apply 
the name to those remote parts. Herodotus, vii. 
95, on the other hand, speaks of the Greeks 
of Pontus contributing 100 ships to the fleet of 
Xerxes in 480 B.C., obviou.sly meaning the south 
Euxine coasts in general ; and Xenophon in the 
Anabasis uses it of the eastern parts of the south 
coast. The term, as thus applied, was rather a 
mere description than a real name. It was only 
at a late period, and through iiolitical circum- 
stances, that ' Pontus ' began to liave a definite 
sense as a geographical name. 

i. The first Kingdom of Pontus.— In the 
confusion that followed on the death of Alexander 
the Great, an adventurer named Mithridates 
managed to found a new state beyond the Ualys 
in north-eastern Asia Minor, about B.C. 302. He 
assumed the title of king probably towards the 
end of B.C. 281, and was afterwards known as 
Ktistes, ' the Founder.' In later times the vanity 
of the dynasty descended from him invented the 
story of a legendary kingdom in older times, ruled 
by a Persian noble family ; but that older kingdom 
rests on no historical basis. The kingdom ruled 
by the Mithridatic dynasty was, to a great extent, 

• Bosporus waa the term which afterwards was employed to 
desit'iial« those rei^lons when formed Into a kingdom. 

part of the country previously called Cappadocia : it 
also included some of the mountain tribes near the 
Black .Sea coasts, and part of Paphlagonia. But, 
as a political unity, it required a name. Polybiuf 
in the 2nd cent. B.C. called it ' Cappadocia towards 
the Euxine,' and Strabo mentions that some called 
it 'Pontus,' and some 'Cappadocia towards the 
Pontus." * Such elaborate names could never estab- 
lish themselves in common use : Cappadocia was 
fixed as the name of the kingdom which iniluded 
the centre and south of the country hitherto 
embraced under that title, and Pontus as the name 
of the northern kingdom which was ruled by the 
Mithridatic dynasty for 218 years, B.C. 2sl-l)3. 
The extent of the name varied according to the 
varying bounds of the kingdom, which was some- 
times larger (including Armenia Minor, etc.), some- 
times smaller. 

The meaning of the name Pontus changed in 
B.C. 64. It had previously designated a kingdom, 
and that kingdom in that year ceased to exist. 
The Romans then incorporated part of the former 
kingdom in the empire, constituting it along with 
BithyNIA as the double province Bithynia et 
Pontus, which continued to exist with hardly 
altered limits for more than three centuries until 
the reorganization of the provinces by Diocletian. 

The rest of the old kingdom of Pontus was 
broken up by Pompej- into a number of partu, 
which were treated in diverse ways ; several self- 
governing cities were constituted ; Comana was 
governed by a priest ; Gazelonitis and Pontic 
Armenia were bestowed on Deiotarus, the G:ilatian 
chief and king. The rapid vicissitudes of that 

Eart of Pontus in the following years cannot here 
e followed up in detail. Pharnaces, son of 
Mithridates the Great, had been made by Poinpey 
king of Bosporus, ruling over the countries on the 
north-eastern coasts of the Euxine ; but he took 
advantage of the civil wars to reinstate himself in 
his father's realm of Pontus, till he was defeated 
by Ca'sar in B.C. 47. The kingdom of Pontus was 
reconstituted by Antony in B.C. 39, and given first 
to Darius, son of Pharnaces, and afterwards, in 
B.C. 36, to Polemon.t Polomon founded a dj-nasty 
of kings who ruled over Pontus until A.D. 63. 

ii. ilisTORY OF Pontus in New Testament 
Times. — The new Pontic dynasty touched Chris- 
tian history in several noteworthy ways ; and it 
also was distinguished by coming into relationship 
with the reigning emperors, Caligula and still 
more nearly Claudius. The second wife of Pole- 
mon I. was Pythodoris, daughter of Antonia and 
granddaughter of Antony the Triumvir. Pytho- 
doris reigned as queen of Pontus in her own right 
after her husbana's death in B.C. 8 until some time 
after A.D. 21 ; but the history of the kingdom is 
quite unknown in her reign, and an interval seems 
to have occurred at her death. Her daughter 
Tryphiena reigned in association with her own son, 
Polcmon II., during part of the reigns of Caligula, 
Claudius, and Nero. The one date which 
is that Caligula J made Polemon II. king of Pontus 
and Bosi)orus in A.D. .'iS. Previously, Trypha-na 
seems to have lived for some time in Cyzicus, and 
she had married Cotys, king of Thrace (who died 
in A.D. 19). She perhaps retired to the neigh lio\ir- 
hood of Iconium at some time during the reign of 
Claudius. Her father, Polenion I., had at one 
time governed a kingdom or state in the south, 

* KanroLioKiA 4 vipj T«, Kvitite*, Polyb. V. 43. 1 J (I w^it xm 
IIokTw KairT<x24x<«, Strub. p. 534. 

t Son of Zeiion, tlio rhetor of Laodicea In the Lycui valley, 
see vol. ii. p. 80. 

I Caligula's (jrandmotlier, Antonia, wos half-sister of Try- 
ph:iina% praiiiiniother. The first year of Tr.\^^hIona and Polt-nion 
LTuli-il (afi:f>nlini; to the current Pontic year)in autumn 38 ; and 
ttieir coins are known .is late aj* their eiKlitecnth year fliiihoof. 
Blunier in X/t, f. Suinittm. XX. p. '2(13; Wroth, Catalogue ^ 
Brit. Mm., Pimttu, p. 47), A.D. 64-66. 




containing Iconinm and great part of Cilicia 
Tracheiii ; and presumably some estates near the 
city may have remained in possession of the 
family.* The remarkable story contained in the 
Acta Paull et Theclw mentions this queen Trypha;na 
as present at a great imperial festival in Pisidian 
Antioch under the reign of Claudius, and calls her 
a relative of the emperor. She could hardly be 
l)resent at that festival of the provincial cult of 
the emperor, unless she were resident in the 
southern part of the province Galatia (of which 
part Antioch was capital), or, perhaps, on the 
frontier in the Cilician kingdom, wliich was given 
to Polemun by Claudius in 41 (see below) ; and she 
was a near connexion of the emperor Claudius, 
whose mother was Antonia, half-sister of Try- 
plirena's grandmother. 

The residence of Tryphtena near Iconium tmder 
Claudius can only have been temporary, as she 
appears with the title of queen on Pontic coins in 
the year A.D. 54-55, when Nero was emperor. 
According to the story (which is probably founded 
on fact) in the Acta above mentioned, she protected 
Thecla, St. Paul's Iconian convert, and was con- 
verted to Christianitj' by her protegee. The name 
Trypha?na evidently lasted in Chrislian tradition ; 
and we tind a martyr Tryph.vna at Cyzicus, which 
was at one time veiy closely associated with the 
ijueen {Acta Sand. 31 Jan. p. 696). 

The dynasty of Polemon is also connected with the legends 
about the Apostle B.irtholomew. According to one lef^end he 
preached in Bosporus, the kingdom of Poleraon I., and from 
A.D. 38 to 41 of Polemon ii.; and afterwards in Armenia Magna, 
where he suffered martyrdom in the city Uurbanopolis. Now 
Polemon u. received a Cilician kingdom in exchange for Bos- 
porus in A.D. 41 ; and the of that kingdom was Olba, 
a Hellenized form of a native name Ourwa or Oura, called also 
Ourbanopolis.t His brother Zenon was made king of Annenia 
Magna in a.d. IS under the name of Arta.vias. 

Another legend makes Bartholomew preach in Lycaonia, or 
in Upper Phrygia and Pisidia. Part of Lycaonia with Iconium 
waa ruled by Polemon i., and the inhabitants of Iconium con- 
sidered it a Phrygian city. The most probable foundation for 
this legend is that Dartholomew preached to the Phrygian tribe 
called the Inner Lycaones ; see Ramsay, Cities and liiAhopricsqf 
Phrygia. pt. ii. p. TOO. A third legend transports the scene of 
Bartholomew's preaching to India, but still assigns tlie name 
Polemics or PoljTuios to the king of the country, and Astreges 
or Astyages to his brother ; and these are evidently mere ais- 
tortions of the names Polemon and Artaxias. 

It seems impossible that so many links should have been 
forged by tradition connecting the dynasty of Polemon with 
the early history of Christianity, unless there had been some 
historical reality out of which legend could draw its material. 
It would be out of place to investigate the subject further 
here. The discovery of the first traces of connexion was made 
by von Gutschmid in the Rhein. Musmnn. 1S04, p. 170 (where 
he wrongly made Tryphana the wife of Polemon). See also 
Lipsius, Apficryphen Apostet^eschichten. ii. 2, p. 5^)S.; Ramsay, 
Church in th^ Jiornan Empire be/ore 170, cli. xvi.; and on the 
Polemon dynasty, Mommsen, Ephem. Epigrnph. ii. p. 259 ff.; 
Hill in Xujnijtyn, Chron. 1800, p. 181 ff.; fclso many other recent 
papers quoted in these works. 

In A.D. 63 the government of Nero came to 
the conclusion that the kingdom of Pontus had 
been raised to such a level of peace and order that 
it might safely be taken into the empire. The 
western part was incorjjorated as a region of 
(iaiatia, and the eastern part was incorporated in 
Cappadocia (see below). Polemon II. still retained 
the title of king, with a kingdom in Cilicia Tracheia, 
where he presumably went to reside after A.D. 64. 

Polemon II. became connected with NT history 
in another way. In 41 the kingdom of Olba 
(including a large part of Cilicia Tracheia) was 
given him by Claudius in exchange for Bosporus j J: 
and he retained this Cilician kingdom at least as 
late as 68, for a coin of Olba bearing his name was 
struck under Galba (though he had lost the king- 
dom of Pontus in 63). Berenice, daughter of 
Herod Agrippa I. (Ac 12), sister of Uerod Agrippa II. 

* See Oalatia, vol. ii. p. 86. 

t On these names for Olba see Ramsay, Bittorical i 'eographi/ 
cj Asia Minor, p. 364. 
t Dion Caw. 60. 8. See Galatia, vol. ii. p. 86 L 

(Ac 20), and widow of her uncle Herod of Chalcia, 
married Polemon, king of Cilicia, after inducing 
him through desire of her wealth to submit to 
circumcision ; but she soon tired of him and 
abandoned him. whereupon he ceased to conform 
to the Jewish law.* This is evidently the same 
Polemon II. Avho was king of Pontus. Josephua 
does not mention the date ; and above, in vol. ii. 
p. 36iJf., the view is stated (following Smith's DB 
li. x.v. ' Pontus,' and other authorities), that the 
marriage with Polemon was earlier than the inter- 
view ot St. Paul with Berenice and her brother 
Agrijjpa. But that early date for the marriage is 
not certain, for Joseplius speaks of Polemon as 
being king of Cilicia, and presumably living there, 
when the marriage occurred ; and this implies a 
date after A.D. 63, for up till that year Polemon 
dotibtless lived in Pontus, and would have been 
called king of Pontus rather than king of Cilicia. 
Berenice had been long a widow, as Joseplius saj-s.t 
when she married Polemon : now her husband, 
Herod of Chalcis, died in A.D. 4S-49. 

Thus in the 1st cent. A.D. the name Pontus had 
two distinct meanings: it might denote either 
the kingdom of Polemon, or the Roman province 
united with Bithj'nia. Further, there were other 
two of the name in the 1st cent, after 
which are revealed to us by inscriptions. The 
kingdom of Polemon, though called Pontu.s, did 
not embrace nearly all the old Mithridatic king- 
dom of Pontus. Apart from the Roman province 
Pontus, a great part of western Pontus had been 
attached to the province Galatia, one part in B.C. 2 
(with the cities Amasia and Sebastopolis), another 
in A.D. 35 (with the city Comana Pontica).t This 
district, then, had to be distinguished from Pontus 
the province and Polemon's Pontus, and the method 
of distinction is clearly shown in many authorities : 
the province was called Pontus simply, Polemon's 
Pontus was called Pontus Polemoniacus (a name 
which remained in use for centuries after the death 
of the last king Polemon), and the part included 
in the province Galatia was called Pontus Galati- 
cus. Those names are used in Ptolemy's geography 
and in many inscriptions of the 1st and 2nd cents.: 
thej- may be compared with the division of Lycaonia 
during the same period into two parts, one ruled 
by king Antiochus and called Lycaonia Antiochiana 
or simplj' Antiochiana (a name that continued in 
use late in the 2nd cent, and occurs in Ptolemy), 
and one attached to the province Galatia and 
called Lycaonia Galatica or simply raXariKij x'<'po 
(see Lycaonia, and on another similar pair of 
parts see Phrygia). 

Still a fourth Pontus is mentioned by Ptolemy 
and in inscriptions, as Pontus Capp.idocictis. This 
included the regions that lay east of Polemoniacus, 
bet« een the Euxine Sea and Armenia ; and it had 
been comprised in the dominions of Polemon I., 
whose realm extended so far as to embrace even 
Bosporus. Some modern authorities consider on 
account of the name Cappadocicus that it was 
not in the dominions granted to Polemon 11. in 
A.D. 38. Queen Pythodoris had married Archelaua 
king of Cappadocia after the death of Polemon I., 
and there is much obscurity as to the fate of the 
Pontic realm in the later years of the queen 
and immediately after her death until A.D. 38 ; 
and the opinion has been held by some that the 
eastern regions were attached to Cappadoci.a and 
assigned specially to Archelaus, so that at his 
dcaui in A.D. 17 Pythodoris continued to reign 
over only the western part of Polemon's former 
kingdom. But this is very improbable ; for Bos- 
porus was included along with Pontus in the 

• Josephus, Ant. xx. vii. 3. 

t IIo^.L, 5;c6tev iTfxrpi'iffo^, XX. vii. 3. 

! Gazelonitis must also be added, as stated above 




kingdom of Polenion II. from 37 to 41, and if so, 
eastern Pontiis also would naturallj' be comprised 
in liis dominions. Moreover, Archelaus' kingdom 
was made into a Roman province in A.D. 17, but 
Trapezus and Cerasus, two cities of Pontus Cap- 
padocicus (Trapezus being made capital of it by 
Trajan), dated from A.D. 63 as era, and this era 
must according to analogy be interpreted as the 
year when they were taken into the Roman Empire 
by being incorporated in a province. Now A.D. 63 
was the year when Polemon's Pontic kingdom was 
taken into the empire, and the cities of Pole- 
moniacus date from that year as era (so Zela and 
Neociesareia) ; hence Cerasus and Trapezus would 
seem to have been included in the kingdom of 
Polemon II. ; and if so, then presumably all Cap- 
padocicus was similarly included. The difference 
of name, Polenioniacus and Cappadocicus, in that 
case, probably began only in A.D. 63, and was due 
to the fact that the eastern half of the kingdom was 
attached to the province Cappadocia and named 
accordingly, while the western half was attached 
to the pro\-ince Galatia, and retained its former 
name Polenioniacus in distinction from the older 
PontusGalaticus. An inscription, dating probably 
between 63 and 78, mentions Pontus Polemoniacus 
and Pontus Galaticus as parts of the province 
Galatia ; * but does not mention Pontus Cap- 
padocicus, thus proving that the latter was not 
m Galatia ; and, as we know that Trapezus by 
that time was Roman, Cappadocia is the only pro- 
vince to which it could have been attached. Such 
is the probable sequence of events. 

Subsequently, Pontus Galaticus and Polemoni- 
acus, after being included in the united provinces 
of Galatia and Cappadocia from about A.D. 78 to 
106, were attached permanently to Cappadocia, 
when the two pro^-inces were again separated by 
Trajan. Such Is the arrangement described by 
Ptolemy. Yet the three names, Pontus Galaticus, 
Polemoniacus, Cappadocicus, persisted, with their 
separate capitals, Amasia, Neoca;8areia, Trapezus, 
implying that they were considered for adminis- 
trative purposes as distinct regions of the vast 
Erovince of Cajipadocia, to which all three were 
enceforward attached. 

iii. The Name Pontus in ttif. New Testa- 
ment. — When the name Pontvis occurs in the NT, 
what are we to understand by it amid this puzzling 
complicacy of three or even four distinct regions, all 
bearing the name? As we have seen, the simple 
name Pontus, without any qualifj'ing ejiithet, was 
regularly employed to designate the Roman pro- 
vince united with Bithynia ; t and the writers of 
the NT seem to have observed this rule of ordinary 
usage. In IP 1' Pontus is clearly the province. 
Few could douVit this ; and Uort has proved it 
beyond all question in his posthumous edition of 
part of the Kpistle. Similarly, when the Jew 
Aquila, who bore a Roman name, is called a man 
if Pontus, Ac 18', it is practically certain that tlie 
pro' ince Pontus is meant. The Roman name 
Oi'mands a Roman connexion. The suggestion 
that he was originally a slave from Pontus Pole- 
moniacus, who had been set free in Rome, seems 
impossible, as the freedman would not retain his 
slave nationality : the statement that Aquila was 
a iiian of Pontus, implies a lasting and present 
diaracteristic. Equally improbalilc is it that 
Pontus Galaticus is meant ; for in the imperial 
system that district was merely a part of the pro- 
vince (ialatia. In fact, there is practically no 

• CIL iii. Suppl. 6818, with tlie rcniarlu Id Banway, Ilit- 
torical Ue^^graphy of Asia Jf tnor, p. 'ii:j. 

t Excr-pt, of course, where the context iniposerl another 
»pn9i.' without any need for a distinctive epithet. K«j»»» IIctm/ 
on c«tinH of Neoca-tiareia the capital of Foleuioniacua means only 
that rt'tfion : similarly, on coins of Zela tov Wat%m. tlfiirn 
n«*Tou on coins of Amasia means Pontus Qslaticus. 
VOU IV.— 2 

doubt that the intention in Ac 18' is to state that 
Aquila, though in recent time resident in Rome, 
was a provincial from Pontus, and not one « lio 
originally belonged to the city. The question 
then arises whetlier Aquila was a cinit Hownniis 
of the province Pontus (as St. Paul was a ih-ij 
EomanuJi of the province Cilicia). That, how. 
ever, is impossible, for he ranked to the Runians 
as a Jew, not as a Roman : the edict of Claudius, 
Ac 18', would not have applied to him if he liad 
been a Roman either by birth or as the freedman 
of a Roman master ; * but, being a Jew by natiiin, 
a provincial residing in Rome, he was expelled by 
the terms of the edict. 

The remaining case is not so clear. In Ac 2' 
among the Jews and proselytes in Jerusalem at 
the Feast of Pentecost are mentioned ' dwellers in 
Judaea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia.' That 
list presents many difliculties, and is probably not 
composed by the author of Acts, but quoted by 
him from an older authority to whom he was 
indebted for the account of an incident which he 
himself had not seen (see PlIRVGiA, vol. iii. p. 867). 
Hence it is not possible to say whether Pontus there 
means the Roman province united with Bithynia, 
or the whole country with its three distinct 
parts. But the former is much more probable, 
for Jews tended to prefer the peaceful and ci\Tlized 
countries, finding them much more suitable for 
trade and residence ; and therefore it is exceed- 
ingly unlikely that there were many, if any, Jews 
in Polemoniacus in the year A.D. 29 or 30. Ponttis 
Galaticus with the great city of Amasia would be 
more likely to contain Jews. But there is no 
possibility of reaching certainty about that unique 
and peculiar passage ; and, being unique, it is less 

iv. Spread of Christianity in Pontus.— The 
Churches of Pontus addressed by St. Peter (1 P 1') 
were evidently mainly composed of converted 
pagans. \\ hen that Epistle was composed, it 
must be concluded that Christianity had already 
taken strong root in Pontus, as contrasted with 
its feeble hold on Lycia and Pamphylia, which 
are not addressed in the Epistle.t Pontus lay so 
far from the earliest lines of the Christian propa- 
ganda that the strength of the new religion in it is, 
certainly, to be regarded as an argument in favour 
of a date later than A.D. 64. J It is highly probable 
that Christianity spread thither by sea from the 
Asian coasts, and even from Rome (as Hort in 
the remarkable essay appended to his posthumous 
edition of 1 Peter is inclined to believe), for it is im- 
probable that any missionary movement occurred 
at so early a date on the lines leading north from 
Syria or Cilicia tlirough the barbarous lands of 
Cappadocia and Pontus Polemoniacus. Thus it 
was the cities of the Ora Pontvn or Pontic coast 
lands which earliest received the new religion ; 
and probably Amastris was its chief centre at first. 
By A.D. 111-113 it had spread so strongly in the 
province Pontus that Pliny, governor of llilliiinui ct 
Fo/itus, when making a ino^ress through Pontus, 
\vrote to Trajan Ep. 96 (probablj' from Amastris, 
where he wrote the following letter, 98), giving a 
remarkable account of the spread of Christianity 
He says that manj' persons, men and women, of all 
ages and every rank in the stale, not merely in the 
great cities, but also in the villages and on farm 
lands, were aflected by the new superstition, the 
temples were to a great extent deserted, the sacri- 
ficial ritual had been for a long time interrupted, 

* Many excellent authorities, in defiance of this obvious 
and inevitable fact, re^^ard him as a freedman. See Sanday- 
lleadlam. Jiomatig, p. 418 fl. 

t The failure of Cilicia is due to its being i>art of the pro- 
vince Syha-Cilicia, and not Included In U»o special group of 
provinces contemplated, viz, Asia Minor. 

I See The Church in the Homan Empire b^ort 170, p. 284. 




and few persons were found to buy animals for 
Bacrilice. This state of the province was of long 
standing {diii), and some wlio were accused de- 
clared that tliey had abandoned Christianity 20 
or '25 years ago.* Hence we cannot believe that 
less tlian 40 to 50 yeais had elapsed since the 
evangelization of the province began. While it 
is evident that I'liny is .speaking of the province 
in general, it is notewortliy tliat it was in Ponlus 
tliat lie hnally became so strongly impressed with 
the evil, and wrote to Trajan for advice about it. 
Towards the middle of the 2nd cent. Lucian con- 
lirms the testimony of Pliny (not that any conhr- 
mation is needed to establish the truth of that 
oiKcial report), alluding incidentally to Pontus, the 
native country of Alexander the impostor of Abo- 
nouteichos, as ' filled full with Epicureans and 
atheists and Christians' (Alex. 25). Like Phrygia, 
Pontus appears in the 2nd cent, as a region where 
Christianity was so strong that its history was no 
longer thatof a militant religion against paganism, 
but rather of a contest of sect against sect. The 
heretic Marcion was born at Sinope in Pontus about 
120. Aquila, the translator of the OT into Greek, 
was also a native of Pontus. 

From the coast lands of the province, however, 
Christianity spread inland only slowlj'. Incident- 
ally we observe here that it is necessary to distin- 
guish carefully between the diflerent meanings of 
the name Pontus, for neglect to do so has led some 
good scholars into needless difficulties. Thus, when 
Gregory Thaumaturgus was made bishop of Neo- 
cajsareia in Pontus about A.D. 240, he is said to 
have found only seventeen Christians in the 
country ;t and, though no reliance can be placed 
on the exact number, still a clear tradition, doubt- 
less trustworthy, is implied that Gregory had gone 
to a practically pagan country. This has been 
often set in opposition to the facts implied in 1 P 
I' and in Pliny. But Gregory preached in Pontus 
Polenioniacus, whose capital was Neoca?saieia, 
while the older authorities speak of the province ; 
and the contrast between the rapid spread in the 
one and the failure in the other is due to the 
tendencj' of the new religion to be restricted to 
the imperial bounds, to prefer civilized regions to 
uncivilized (Polemoniacus being remote and back- 
ward compared to the province), and to flourish 
be>t in districts where there had long been a strong 
■Jewish clement to prepare the soil. 

Still the inner lands of Pontus appear to have 
been Christianized to a considerable extent during 
the 3rd cent, by the work of Gregory Tliaumatuigus 
and other less famous missionaries. Such martyrs 
as Theodorus Tiro at Amasia, Theodorus the Soldier 
at HeracleopolisJ and Kukhaita, with many others,§ 
are mentioned in the latest persecutions under Dio- 
cletian, Maximian, and Licinius. Uefore the time 
of Constantine the ecclesiastical system in all the 
districts of Pontus had been organized to a very 
considerable det,'ree of completeness, not indeed 
so perfectly as in Pisidia and Lycaonia, but more 
thoroughly than in Galatia (see Galatia, vol. ii. 
p. 85). I'or example, Hieiodes gives a list of hve 
cities in Pontus Polemoniacus, and three of these 
were represented at the Council of Niciea in A.D. 
325. But, as a whole, the evidence points to the 
3rd and even tlie 4th cents, as the period when 
Christianity spread through inner Pontus, while 

• Viginti i7«<)(/ii«, editloprinccps ; ciyinliquin/iue, conjecture. 

1 Gregory Nyss. fit. Greg. Thaum. xlvi. pp. 898, !I54 (ed. 
Jfiitne) "^ ^ 

J Wrongly called llerncleia In the extant Ada (the best 
beinif the Armenian, tnin8lat«<l by Conybearc, Mimuiiienlt nj 
Sarlu Ckrieluoiit;/, p. 224) : it bore the double name Seba-sto- 
-■•oli.s-HeraeleoitoIia, and waa not far from Kukhaita; see ^cM 
Ulncturv.m, 7 Feb. vol. H. pp. 23, 891. 

8 In the Martiiroti>g. Uieroui/m. the martyrs' names are often 
*«r>' corrupt (see Duchesne's Index, tt.vo. Amasia, Xeocaosarea, 
^baatia) ; see also the Syriac ilartyrology, IStb Aug. 

the 1st and 2nd cents, were the time when the sea. 
coast, i.e. the province Pontus, was evangelized. 
Hence it is on the coast, at Sinope, that we lind an 
early martyr, like Phocas the bishop of Tiajan'a 

About A.D. 20.') Diocletian reorganized the pro- 
vincial .system and broke up the large provinces. 
The Pontic districts were then completely re- 
arranged. The province Pontus was partitioned 
betw-een Paphlagonia and Diospontus. The latter, 
which was afterwards named Helenopontus, after 
the mother of Constantine, contained also parts of 
I'aphlagonia, Pontus Galaticus, and Polemoniacus. 
Pontus Polemoniacus retained its name, but was 
reduced in size, losing Zela to Diospontus, and 
Sebasteia to Armenia Minor. Pontus Galaticus 
disappeared entirely, losing Amasia, etc., to Dios- 
pimtus, Sebastopoiis-llcracleopolis to Armenia 
Minor, Comana, Ibora, and Zela to Polemoniacus, 
and probably some parts to Galatia the Byzantine 
province. T'he ecclesiastical organization followed 
this new arrangement. W. M. Ramsay. 

POOL is the tr" in OT of three Heb. words.— 
1. Dj.^ 'ftgam, ' pond ' of stagnant or muddy water, 
from [c;n] to be troubled or muddy. Tlie ' ponds,' 
RV 'pools,' of Egj-pt (Ex 7" 8' OLupuyes, paludes), 
were probably the sheets of stagnant water left by 
the inundation of the Nile. In Ps 107^ 114' the 
word is rendered 'standing water,' RV 'a pool of 
water ' [\, stagnum) ; in Is 14«> 35' iV^ 42'^" ' pool ' 
or 'pools' (?Xos, pains, stagnum); and in Jer 51" 
it is put for 'reeds,' or reedy places ((Tv(rTiixa.Ta, 
paludes). In Is 19'", whilst the Vulg. renders by 
lacima, the LXX has i'CSos, ' beer ' (see art. Fl.SH- 
PooL). 2. .njij? mUcvch, or njipp mikvah ; a place where 
waters How together, from .up (Niph. 'assemble'). 
The word is tr' differently upon each occasion of 
its use. In Gn 1'" it is rendered the 'gathering 
together' (of the waters) when the earth and the 
seas were created (to. avariixara, cungregationcs 
[aquarum]). In Ex 7'" the 'pools,' KV 'ponds' 
(tA fXi), lacus), of Egypt were probably reservoirs 
for the storage of water, as opposed to tlie stagnant 
water ('(!(/«)«) left by the inundation. In Lv 11*" it 
is translated 'plenty,' ItV ' gatlierinfj' (of water) 
{(rmayuyn, congregatio [aquarum ]j. In Is 22" the 
'ditcii,' KV ' reservoir' (Coup, lai-us), made between 
the two walls at Jerusalem appears to have been 
formed by damming up the valley. 

3. .1J15 hc.ri'khnh, a ' pool,' or an ' artificial tank ' 
hence the Arabic birkel, and the Spanish al-bcrca. 
The LXX generally tr. the « onl by KoKvix^riBpa, but 
in four instances (2 S 2'^ 4'-, 1 K 22-'», 2 lv 2U'-''') by •rpTixi) 
and in one (Ca 7'') by Xifivri. The Vulg. has/Jwc/n/i 
and once (Neh 2''') aqua-durtus. In the IS'T (Jn 
5-- ■'■'9') KoXiiM/^>)fl/)a is useil. In Ps 84", where the 
plural occurs, AV' reads 'lilleth the pools,' whilst 
KV has 'covereth it with blessings' {i.e. bcrakludh 
instead of herekhCth) ; with this may be compared 
the ' valley of Berachah,' /coiXis evXcr/lai, vallis bene- 
diitiojiis, 2 Ch 20-"'. 

The pools were formed by building a nam across 
a valley, or by excavation ; and they were supplied 
by surface ilrainage, by springs, or by watei 
brought from a distance iiy conduits. They 
allowed the water to deposit any sediment it con- 
tained ; and they were often connected with 
aqueducts and baths. They also frequently sup- 
plied water for irrigation, and wore open to the air. 
riie pools near towns were usually rectangular in 
form, and had their sides lined with watertight 
cement. They were somellmes surrounded by 
porticoes {aroai), in wliich bathers un<lre8sed them- 
selves and lounged before or after bathing. The 

• The best Acfa are the Armenian in Conybeare'e Monvv^entt 
of Etu-bj Christianity, p. 103 ; see also Acta Sanctoruvt, July U, 
vol. iii. p. 600 ff . 


pool of Siloam had four such porticoes, and 
remains of them have been found by excavation ; 
Bethesda, which waa a duuhle jiool, had live 
porticoes (Jii 5-), one on eacli of the four sides, 
and tlie lifth in the middle between the two pools. 

I'ools are mentioned in tlie Bible at Hebron (2 S 
4'=), Gibeon ('2S 2'^), Sanuiria (1 K 22**), and Hesh- 
bon (Kc2'); and in general terms in Is 14^19'" 
and Nail 2". At or near Jerus. there were several 
pools : the Upper P. (2 K 18", Is 7" 36-) ; the Lower 
P. (Is 22») ; the Old P. (Is 22") ; the King's P. (Neh 
2") ; the P. of Siloali, KV Shelah (Neh 3'»), appar- 
ently the same as the P. of Siloam (Jn 9'); the 
• P. that was made' (Neh 3'«) ; 'a' P., KV ' the ' P. 
made by Hezekiah (2 K 20-'") ; and the P. of 
Bethesda (Jn 5" *• '). josephus also mentions the 
Serpents' P. (BJ\. iii. 2) ; Solomon's P. (/i./V. iv. 
2); the P. Amygdalon, and the P. Struthius (BJ 
V. xi. 4). Many of the ancient pools may still be 
seen in Palestine. The best known are those at 
Hebron and Jerusalem, and the ' poolsof Solomon,' 
near Bethlehem, w liicli are possibly the ' pools of 
water' (Ec 2*) that Solomon constructed to irri- 
gate his gardens and orchards. These pools 
are three in number, and they have been formed 
by building solid dams of masonry across the 
valley of Urtas. They have a total capacity of 
44,147,000 gallons, and are so arranged that the 
water from each of the higher pools can be run 
oil' into the one immediately below it. The water 
was conveyed to Jerusalem by a conduit. 

C. W. Wilson. 

POOR. — 1. This word, especially when it repre- 
sents the Heb. 'H', is used sometimes with a semi- 
religious connotation, the nature of which it is the 
object of the present article to e.\plain. In order 
to understand the term satisfactorily, it is neces- 
Bary to bear in mind the meaning of the cognate 
veil), Heb. nj];, Arab, 'anil (ana'"). The Arab, ana 
means to he Imvhj, submisiive, obedient, especially 
by becoming a captive, and so the ]itcp. is often 
used simply in the of a captive ' : tlie Heb. 
n;j; means analogously /o be humbled, Is 31* (KV 
'abase himself'), in the cau.sative conj. tu liiiinblc, 
mishandle, es]). by depriving of independence, or 
liberty, or recognized rights (EV usually 'alllict') : 
of. Gn 16«(KV • dealt hardly'), Jg 19»* (' humble'), 
— in both, parallel with 'do to her (them) that 
which is good in thy (your) eyes,' Gn 31*" (of the 
maltreatment of wives by a husband), Ex 22---'^' 
(of the ill-treatment of a widow or or])han), Jg 
jgj. 0. Ill (of ill.usiii^. Samson) ; and often of the ill- 
treatment of a nation in bondage, as Gn 15" (1| ' to 
serve'). Ex !"• ■- (if. v." 'make to serve'); see 
also 2 S 7'° (Ps 89-''), Ps 94».t 

2. The subst. 'iinl (EV mostly 'afllicfcd,' or 
' poor') thus means proiierl3' one humhlcd or bovxd 
dinrn, especially by oiipression, deprivation of 
rights, etc., but also, more generally, by mis- 
fortune : as the persons thus ' humbled ' would 
commonly be the ' poor,' the term came to denote 
largely the class whom we should call the ' |ioor,' 
and ' poor ' is thus one of tlie conventional render- 
ings of the word : it must, however, be remem- 
bered that V>Hi does not really mean 'poor,' and 
that while in the English word ' jxior the jno- 
minent idea is the poverty of the ]ierson or persons 
so de.scribed, in the Heb. '«ni the piomiiiciit iilea 
is that of the ill-treated, or the iiiiHeiable : in 
other words, the 'dni, while often, no doubt, a 
person in need, was primarily a person sutlering 
some kind of social disahility or distress. 

3. w"i rt'mh, J9 the Heb. word which expreBSts ilistinctlvely 
the idea of poverty ; but tliia occurs only I S IS-', 2 S 121- »■ *, 
P« 823 (KV ■destitute), Kc i'* !)», and 15 times in Proverbs. 

* See Rohlh, "jy und ljj( in den Ptatmen, 1802, pp. 07-69. 
t Comp. the cognate subst. 't'ini, itaU nj beinn hu}fti/ie4i or 
kowed down, EV ' allliction,' On 10" ill'iK Ex »'■ ", U 48iJ al. 



It 18 worth noticing (Kahlfs, p. 75) that 'athir, 'rich,' nevel 
appears as the opposite of 'cini, while it is the true antithesis ol 
rush (2 S 121 i •', I'r 14*1 is23 222- ' 2S'>). 

'Poor* is also sometimes the tr. of 'ebt/ijn, * needy'; and 
often that of dal (prop. Ihin, reducM, feeble): c(. Driver, 
Parallel Psalter, pp. 450, 452. 'Kbynn is once opposed U> 
'ttxhir, Ps 49*^ : and dal is opposed to it 5 times. Ex 30I» Pr 1015 
22i«2Sli Ku3io. 

It is to be regretted that there is no English word which 
would both suit all the passages in which 'unl occurs, and 
also indicate its connexion with dnCih, 'inndh, and 'dni. 

4. In the laws of Ex 22=*, Lv 19'» ( = 23'-''), Dt 
15" 24'^- '*■ ", now, 'anl is used as a purely colour- 
less designation of the per.sons whom we should 
describe as the 'poor.' But in the projihets and 
poetical books, esp. the Psalms, we see gradually 
other ideas attaching themselves to tlie term. 
Thus allusions are made, especially by the pro- 
phets, to the ojipression of the '(Xniyylni, at the 
hands of a high - handed and cruel aristocracy 
(Am 8* [Heb. marg.]. Is S'-"- " 10= 32' [Heb. iiiarg.J, 
Ezk 16*" [in Sodom], 18" 22-» ; Job 24-'- "■ ", Pr 30") ; 
so that they become the objects of special regai<l 
on the jiart of a righteous king (Jer22'", Pa 72-- *■ '-), 
or individual (Ezk 18", Is 5S', Zee 7'", Ps 82^ Pr 22-- 
319. « . cf J.J 1421 [Heb. text], Dn 4"), and especi- 
ally of Jehovah (Is 14*-, ef. v.** ; implicitly, also, 
in the other passages quoted). 

6. Comp. the allusions to the oppressions of the ' needy 
(D'4V:n) in Am 28 41 512 84- 6, Is 32', Jer 234 em and elsewhere, 
and of the ' reduced' (D'it. EV 'poor') in Am 2' 41 611 »'\ Is 
102 etc. (both words often in parallelism with 'aniyyim); aii'l 
the manner in which it is promised that they will be in u 
special degree under the protection of the ideal king (Ps72' 
1^ l-'i, Is IH), and that — like the 'uniyyim in Is 14^"— they will 
be the first to benefit, when society is regenerated, and J" 
establishes His ideal kingdom (Is 14^0 254 20ii>). 

6. So in Ps 18=^ God is spoken of as saving the 
'alllicted (or humbled) people' ("Jj; Di), but as 
abasing the 'haughty eyes' ; and in Is 20'*, when 
the tyrannical city has been destroyed, it is men- 
tioneil, as a special ground for satisfaction, that 
the'«»» and the dallim may then tread unmolested 
over its ruins. 'Ani is used also of Israel, sulVering 
in the wilderness or in exile or war, and regarded 
as implicitly or ideally righteous, and eliciting in 
consequence Jehovah's compassion, Ps 68'", Is 41" 
49'» 51-' 54", cf. Hab 3". In Zejih 3'-' the ideal 
Israel of the future, who survive after the coming 
judgment has removed from Jerusalem the ' proudly 
exulting' ones, so that none will any more be 
' haughty' in God's holy mountain, are character- 
ized as a ' humbled and jioor jieojile ' (*?■;; 'r^ Di'), 
wliowill 'take refuge' in the name of J", and (v.") 
be free from all iniquity. Perhaps, indeed, the 
expression means also Israel generally in Is •2&. 

7. These passages show 'dnl ('alllicted,' 
' poor'), asalso its frequent parallel 'fiiyonC needy'), 
and, though somewliat less distinctly, dal (EV 
also mostly ' poor'), came gradually to imply more 
than jiersons who were merely in some kind of 
social subjection, or material need : they came to 
denote the godly poor, the sullering righteous, the 
persons who, whetlier ' bowed down,' or ' needy,' or 
'reduced,' were the godly servants of .leliovah. 
It is eviilcnt that in ancient Israel, especially in 
later times, piety prevaileil more aiiuiiig the 
humbler classes tlian among the wealthier and 
ruling classes: indeed the latter are habitually 
taken to task by the prophets for their cruel and 
unjust treatment of the former. In particular, as 
Kahlfs (p. 89) observes, 'djii acquired thus, not 
indeed a religious meaninij, but a religious colour- 
iiKj. This colouring appears most frequently in 
the Psalms ; note tlie following passages, in which, 
if they are compared careiully with the context, 
it will become evident that the 'dniyy'im (fre- 
quently II with the 'needy') are sulistanlially 
identical with those who are elsewhere in the 
same Psalms called ' the godly,' ' the righteous,' 

20 POOR 

•the faithful,' etc: Ps 9" (Heb text* ; RV) 
lo" »• »• " (Ileb. texf : RV) [comp. 9" 'those that 
know thy name' and 'that seek after thee, 
nlie humble ' (see below)] ; 12» [see v. .* the god y, 
•the faithful']; W^ [v>. ' for J" is his refuge ]^ 
IS" 22« -20" (' I am solitary and ant ; ct. bJ 
88-), 34« 35>»;'» (delivered by J"). 37" of- J-"). 40„ 


= W "C'l am -cinf^i needy ' ; 80_8f.' 10?=^J,.74'»- f 
jQOUUe \Qf)\(i 140^3 . Bee also Is 

Psalmists' o^ sufferings: also 44- lOV^ «). Most 
of these passages-indeed except Ps 18", probably 
all-are post: exUic; and reflect the social a.,d 
religious conditions of the Post-esdic community : 
the religious 'colouring' of on*, which had been 
previouSy in process of acquisition, was then con- 
firmed. The troubles of which the 'am complains 
are, however, not jioveriy, but chiefly social and 

'l^'Fro^mTJis to be carefully distinguished a 
word with which it has been sometmies very need- 
lessly confused, 'anaw. While ani means one who 
is ' humbled ■ or ' bowed do^vn ' by adverse external 
circumstances, •andw means one who is humble 
in disposition and character ' humble - minded 
(Chey^e, OP, 98), or, to speak more sPfci^^?;"?' 
one who bows voluntarUy under the band of God, 
and is ' submissive to the Divine will (Cheyne, 
Introd. to Is. 64 f., 266). It thus, unlike am, has 
from the beginning an essentially moral and re- 
liraous connotation. In AV and llV it is mostly 
rendered 'meek'; but meekness is predicated of 
a person's attitude towards other men, whereas 
'dnaw denotes rather a man's attitude towards 
God • so that ' humble ' would be the better render- 
in". ' 'Anaw is less common than arei : it occurs in 
nS 123 (of Moses) ; in the prophets Am 2' SMHeb. 
textt) Is 11* 29>» 32' (Heb. text J) ei', Zeph 2' ; in 
Uiejoet books, Ps 9- (Heb. text:), 10" 22- 25»- 
34^ 37" ('the humble shall inherit the earth ), by 
76» 147' 149*, and the Heb. margin of Pr 3" (opposed 
to D-s'7 ' scorners'), 16" (opposed to ' the proud ; cf. 
Sir id" [Heb.]),— in all, ot the ' humble,' either as 
victimized by wicked oppressors, or as the objects 
of Jehovah's regard, and recipients of Uis sal- 
vation ^ The cognate subst. 'dnawah occurs Ps 
18" (of J"), 45MI Zeph2' ('seek righteousness, 
seek /r»mi/rt2/'). Pr 15^=18'=' ('before honour is 
humility '), 22*. 

9 The Heb mare. (Kerf) substitutes thrice (Am Si, Is S?", Ps 
A Aum)" d '^oof •) lor humUe o( the text {gethihhy and five 
tines "8 91» 1012 PrV U^i 1619) AumWe for liuvMed (• poor ) 
orthe'i.x?(Ke(A*A),-in each caie, it.seen«(ct Ralxlfs, p. 54 U 
deemi.^ the correction to express an idea better suited to the 
cSn (in Am 81, Is 327. Ps 91» the parallel clause has ru'rfy ; 
in Pr 3M 1619 humble forms evidently a juster antithesis to 
• sconier ' and ' proud ' than ntlMed or ' poor •)• The correction 
is certlinly riKhl in Pr 334 i«i9, probably also in Am 8«; m the 
other passages it does not seem to be necessary. 

10 The two terms which have been here dis- 
cussed seem, in fact, to have been two of the more 
prominent and distinctive designations of a party 
in ancient Israel, which appears to have first begun 
to form itself during the period of the later pre- 
exilie prophets, but which, during the Exile and 
subsequently, acquired a more marked and dis- 
tinctive character— the party, VIZ. of the faithful 
and Godfearing Israelites, who held together, and 
formed an ecclcsiola in ecclesia, as opposed to the 

• The Heb. marg. (.Kerf) has In these passages the humblt 

^^Thl Het'Lrg'caniW). followed by EV yields, however 
» more snitoble 4nse here! it would also be better to read 
■Snimif in 2^ (cf. I« 102). 

! Ilcb man;. (Frri') (A« ;i<""" ; see 5 ». , , .. ... 

I with iT 611 (^iLxx, wrongly. Tr.x«. and so in the quoutlon, 

" wL're-^rideo^n'^c!;. wlaVo/. . . "-f,'*^"' "^""i" hLV S'the 
that the king addressed is to take the Held on behalf of the 
l^umblea^"nst their proud oppressor, (see Cheyne or Kirk- 
patr'ck. ad loc.). 

worldly and indifferent, often also paganizing and 
persecuting, majority. The Psalms, especially the 
Psalms of 'complaint,' abound with allusions to 
these two opposed parties, the opposition between 
which seems to have been intensihed m the post- 
exUic period, tUl it culminated, in the age of 
Antiochus Epiphanes, in the struggle Vetween the 
nationalists and the Hellenizers. 1 he God-fearing 
party are described by many more or less synony- 
mous designations, such as ' those tliat^ fear (or 
love) J",' ' those that seek (or wait for) J , the ser- 
vants of J",' the ' godly • {hOsldim), the ' righteous, 
etc. ; from the point of view of their social con- 
dition they are specially the 'ciniyyhn or (to adopt 
the conventional rendering) the ' poor, from the 
point of view of their chtiracter they are the 
^andimm or the 'humble.' The partv opposed to 
them are the 'wicked,' the 'evil-doers, the proud, 
the 'haters,' 'enemies,' or 'persecutors ot tlie 
Psalmists and their co-religionists, who are de- 
scribed as 'seeking their life' and 'delighting in 
their hurt,' etc., and as setting themselves in 
various ways to dishonour Jehov.oli, and brin^ 
reproach upon His servants (cf. Cheyne, JMl, 
pp 114-125).* The former party was that out 
of 'which a considerable number of the Psalms 
appear to have sprung, especially those which 
po'sess a representative character, and in whictt 
the Psalmist seems to give expression not simply 
to his own experiences and spiritual emotions, but 
also to those of a circle of similarly cucumstanced 
godly compatriots. 

See further, Gratz, Die Psalmfn (1882), 20-37 (whose view, 
howlver" that the ■ were Levites ,.s "2* f « «W'^) J 
Isidore Loeb, ' La Litt(^rature des Pauvres in RhJ. l^JlJ-Ja 
?Nos 40-42 45, 46, 4»), also pubUshed separately, Pans, 1892 
(clever : e.xempUaes very fully the characteristics of the poor, 
esoecia b in the Psalms, but exaggerates the idealism of the 
Heb poets, and also geMralizes too freely); Kahlfs, op. «(. 
Hupfeld (on Ps 9") contended that -^ and 1.;^ were used with- 
out anv distinction ot meaning, both signifying «'»J'^<''; ■ ^7' ' ™ 
collateral idea of humble ; but this view is antecedently miprob- 
ab le S not required by the facts.t Ges. (/'/.«■.) treated_ bo^ 
words ^meaning properly amicted, but regarded anaw as 
havin-tlwavs th? Collateral idea of humbU meek Recentl 
scholars? as -Pelitzsch and Cheyne (both on Ps 9 »),. La«arde 
ihtlli i 81 RahUs, pp. 02-66, 73-80 (cf. Konig, Lgb. u. 134, ,6). 
more correcUy disthrguish -ani. 'bowed down.' from ,am.«.. 
"one who bows bimse1f,'-Del. and Cheyne, however, thinking 
also that asamictionistheschoolofhumility.and a man may 
be°bowed down' with consent ot his own wi". "»y ^cv-ired 
secondarilv the sense of ' humble.' It seems best, with Eahlts, 
to keen the words entirely distinct: the -animm were no 
doubt! known to be also ' humble.' and so could be. opposed to 
the •proud,' Ps IS*?, or classed with the 'stricken n spint. Is 
m : but the fact is not expressed by the terni used It wouW 
be easier, if necessary, to read one word for the '^ther, than W 
give one word the meaning of the other The L\X Pre3er^ es 
on the whole, a consciousness ot the distinction between the 
Uvo words? the translators render 'ani (/a.) by ».,« 13 times 
bv T™x« 38 times, by T.Ti,..,- 9-10 times,X-^/r= ""'^ ^"»^ 
•>i2 Zcc99 Is 'm'-: and-«iiciic {Kt.) by »^«»f 8 times, by j..« 
3 times, by T^^i. 4 times, by ..tu.« 4 times- in view, how- 
ever of the frequency with which • and 1 are confused in L.\X 
(Driver. Samuel, Ixv-lxvii), we cannot be sure that they always 
read the Heb. text exactly as we do. In the Targ., also (especi- 
allTin the Psalms, Rahlfs. p. 56 f.), the great y predominant 
rendering of ■«"! i' ' poor." distressed,' etc.. while tWt of anau, 
is -humble' (ir^iy). And the Vulg. nearly always renders om 
bv vauper, egenua, inopi, bufdnuw by miti» or inanswlM. 

S. R. Driver. 

POPLAR occurs twice in EV (Gn 3(F, RVm 
'stvrax • Hos 4>-'). The Heb. n::'?, libneh, signiliea 
'a white tree.' The LXX in Genesis gives <rTi.p<£- 
KLvo^=stora3:, and in Hosea Xei'.K7(= 'poplar. 1 he 
authority of the Arab, luhna, which signihes tho 
storax, may be considered decisive as to the meaning 
of the Hebrew. Styrax officinalis, L., of the order 

• lUhlfs, following Ewald, calls attention (pp. 6-29) to the 
numerous similarities of expression and ^^^X'^^^^'^ro"!!' 
in particular the group of Ps:dnis, 22. 25. 31. 34 36. s». 4(i. ou. 
n. 102. 109; he aTsigni the group (p. 30 9.) to the close of ths 

^^The'^nSte'is iSuch'abbreriated (the sentence ou the original 
difference of ':V and 1J» being added) in Nowock's revised ed. ot 
Uupfeld's Comm. (ISsS). 




Sf tjracacetx, is a shrub or tree 6 to 20 feet high, 
with ovate to round -ovate leaves, glabrescent at 
upper, and white-woolly at lower, surface. It 
bears numerous snowy-white flowers, resembling 
orange blossoms, 1 to 2 inches broad, and a green 
drupe-like berry. The otlicinal storax is the in- 
spissated juice of the inner layer of the bark. 
It has an agreeable vanilla-like odour. It was 
formerly employed in medicine as a stimulant 
expectorant, but is little used now. The name 
lihneh, ' white,' is well justified by the snowy- 
white under surfaces of the leaves, and the wealth 
of beautiful white blossoms. No wild tree of the 
country is more ornamental than this. It is 
common in thickets from the coast to the sub- 
alpine regions. In Syria it is called haxiz. It has 
been objected to the rendering 'styrax' (Hos 4") 
that it IS not large enough to give the ' shadow ' 
rei)uired, and that therefore 'poplar' should be 
retained. We have, however, indicated that 
Sfi/rax officinalis attains a height of 20 feet, and 
Euch trees would give a better sliade than the tall, 
cylindrical poplar. Moreover, the poplar is a tree 
of valleys and plains, growing only by water- 
courses, while Stijrax grows on dry hillsides, in 
localities similar to those of the oak and tere- 
binth. G. E. Post. 

PORATHA (N,n-;-s ; B *a/)o5(i#o, S ^apadOa, A Bop- 
9i0a). — The fourth of the sons of Haman, who were 
put to death by the Jews (Est 9*). The name is prob- 
ablj- Persian, and the LXX reading suggests that the 
true form is Poradatha (k^'i-)13= ' given by fate ' ?). 

PORCH. — A covered entrance to a building. It 
is f.'(-nerally outside the main building, and so 
differs from vestibule which is inside, and from 
which doors open into tlie several apartments of 
the house. Two words in OT denote porch, viz. 
Heb. dS'n ['(lam), found in Ezk 40 onlj', and c^m 
('aidm), which occurs in 1 K, 1 and 2 Ch, Ezk, and 
Joel. As to the identical meaning of these Heb. 
words see under Ancn. 

There is another Heb. word I^"i";P {misdSrCn), 
which EV tr. by porch (.Jg 3^ ' Then Ehud went 
into the porch ). This word is not used else- 
where ; and while we do know that some part of 
a house is denoted, we have no means of saying 
what part. The versions render little if any aid, 
nor do the cognates throw any light on the mean- 
ing. The root is ^^5 {sr.rier), a row, series, order. 
So |n^;? (m>sdfr6n) might be expected, according 
to its etymology-, to denote something built in line 
with or according to the form of something else, 
such as a wing, built along the outside walls of 
a porch, with sides at right angles to the main 

The word 'iUdm or 'ildm is variously applied 
inOT. ^ '^ 

1. It is used of the porch erected to the ea-st of 
Solomon's temple, 1 K 6' and 1", and 2 Ch 15» 
20'- ". It was 20 cubits long by 10 broad ; its 
height is not given in 1 K, but in 2 Ch 3* it is 
said to be 120 cubits high. Now, a porch 20 cubits 
long, 10 broad, and 120 high would be a mon- 
strosity ; indeed the whole verse as it stands is 
senseless. Kautzsch, Bertheau, Oettli, and Kittel 
attempt a reconstruction, and all agree that 120 
for the height is an evident mistake ; A of the 
LX.X, the SjT., and Arab, versions have 20, which 
is likely enough to be correct, though Bertheau 
prefers reading 30. Aug. Hirt (i)er Te.inpd 
Srtlomo's, p. 4), together with the above authori- 
ties, excepting Bertheau, decide for 20. If the 
text is to be upheld, it is to be explained, as by 
Ewald {Gesch. iii. p. 42), according to the well- 
known leaning of tne Chronicler to exaggeration ; 
but in this case tlie exaggeration is one which 

makes the ■«Titer ridiculous, and it is far better 
to emend the text. The similarly situated porch 
of Ezekiel's temple has the same name, Ezk 40^ 
41" (read with CornUl, sing. ' porch '). 2. The same 
word is employed for each of the two porches 
belonging to Solomon's palace, the 'porch of 
pillars ' IK"', and the ' throne porch ' (or place of 
judgment), 1 K 7'. 3. In Ezk the word stands for 
the two large apartments, one lying at the inner 
end of the outer gate, the other at the outer end of 
the inner gate. It is in this connexion that the 
form 'Ham is mostly, though not exclusively, em- 
ployed. Of these minor porches there were in all 
six : one at each of the three outer (N. E. S.), and 
one at each of the three corresponding inner gates. 

In NT three separate Gr. words are translated 
in EV ' porch.' 

1. Mk 14"* ' And he (Peter) went into the porch.' 
The Gr. word (irpoaiXtov) denotes a covered way 
leading from the street into the court of a house ; 
a sort of passage. ' Forecourt ' is the word given 
in RVm. 2. Mt 26" 'And when he (Peter) was 
gone out into the porch.' This passage is paral- 
lel with the former, and, though irvKuiv usually 
means door, doorwav, there can be no doubt that it 
has liere the same signification as irpoavXiop in Mk. 
3. Jn 5- ' Now there is in Jerus. by the sheep gate 
a pool, which is called in Heb. Bcthesda, having 
five porches.' These porches (ffroai) are simply 
five covered ways joining the street with a pool. 
In three other places, in each case in the phrase 
' Solomon's porch,' is the word o-rod found (Ju 10^, 
Ac 3" 5'"). Tliis was a portico on the eastern side 
of the temple building, hence called by Jos. {Ant. 
XX. ix. 7) (XToa ava.To\iKTi, and supposed by him to 
have survived the destruction of the temple in 
B.C. 586, and to go back to Solomon's own day 
(ib. XIV. xi. 5, XX. ix. 2 ; Wars, V. v. 1). It la 
generally agreed that this eastern porch, as well 
as tlie other porches existing in our Lord's time, 
were due to Herod's restoration ; yet, if this porch 
was built so near the time of Josephus, it is singular 
that he should have thought it to lie tlie work 
of Solomon. T. W. BA\^ES. 


PORCUPINE.— See Bittern. 

PORPOISE.— See Badger. 

PORT. — This word has in its time played many 
parts. It has meant (I) carriage of the body, 
demeanour (from Lat. portare, to carry) ; (2) a 
harbour (from Lat. porlus) ; (3) an entrance, a 
gate (from Lat. porta, through Fr. parte) ; and (4) 
a wine (from Oporto, in Portugal). Of these 
meanings (1) and (3) are now almost obsolete. In 
AV the only occurrence of the word is Nch 2", 
where it means 'gate,' the same Heb. word (il'S*) 
being translated 'g.ate' in the same verse. In 
Ps 9'* Pr. lik. there is an instance of the same 
meaning, ' That I m.aye shewe all thy praysea 
wytli in the portes of the daughter of Sj'on.' 
Knox often uses the word, sometimes adding 
'gate' as if the classical 'port' might not be 
familiar. Thus, Hist. p. 408, ' They caused to 
keep the Ports or Gates and make good Watch 
about the Towne'; Works, iii. 311, 'Let every 
man put his sworde upon his thygh, and go in and 
out from porte to iioite in the tentes ; and let 
every man kil his brother, his ncyglibour, and 
every man his nigh kynsman ' ; p. 3'23, 'They be- 

fynne to syncke to the gates of iiell and portes of 
es]ieration.' Davies quotes Scott's lino in Bonnie 
Dundee — 

' Unbeuk the West Port, and let us goe free.' 




PORTER (nyW, in Ezr 7" Aram, spb ; LXX irvXupis 
and Ovpupds, NT dvpupos) occurs frequently in our 
English versions, especially in the liks. of Chron- 
icles and Ezra-Neheiiiiah. It has always the sense 
of gatekeeper (Frencli portier), being a derivative 
from porta, 'a gate.' Owing to the ambiguity of 
the Eng. word, which also means the carrier of a 
burden (French ])orteur, from porter, 'to carry'), 
it would have been well if ' gatekeeper ' had been 
uniformly adopted as tlie rendering of the Heb. and 
Gr. terms. RV has at least 'doorkeepers' in 1 Ch 
15'8 16^ -23' 20'- '" ", 2 Ch 8". 

For the employment of ' porters ' in public or 
private buildings, as well as at sheepfolds (Jn 10^), 
see art. G.^TK in vol. ii. p. 113" ; and for the duties 
and the organization of the Levitical ' porters,' see 
art. Peiksts and Levites. J. A. Selbie. 

POSIDONIUS (IlotriSiivios).— An envoy sent by 
Nicanor to Judas Maccabseua (2 Mac 14'*, cf. 
1 Mac 7-''-»'). 

POSSESS. — The verbs possidere and possidSre are 
said to be distinguished in Latin, the former meaning 
to 'have in possession,' 'own,' the latter to 'take 
possession of,' 'win.' The Eng. verb 'to possess' 
adopted both meanings. In AV it nearly always 
means ' to take possession of,' ' win.' This is some- 
times evident, as Nu 13^" ' Let us go up at once and 
possess it'; Jos 13' 'There remaineth yet very 
much land to be possessed.' But sometimes it is 
not so, as Gn 22" ' Thy seed shall possess the gate 
of his enemies ' ; Lk IS'- ' I give tithes of all that 
I possess'; 21" 'In j'our patience possess ye your 
souls ' ; * 1 Th 4* ' That every one of you should 
know how to possess his vessel in sanctification 
and honour.' Cf. Fuller, Holy IVarre, 14, 'The 
Saracens had lately wasted Italy, pillaged and 
burned many churches near Rome it self, conquered 
Spain, invaded Aquitain, and possessed some 
islands in the mid-laud-sea ' ; and Ac 1'* Rhem. 
' And he in deede hath possessed a field of the 
reward of iniquitie.' 

Sometimes the meaning is to ' enter into posses- 
sion,' ' inherit,' as Job 7' ' So am I made to possess 
months of vanity' ('^ 'P^OfC 13); Zee 8'' 'I will 
cause the remnant of this people to possess all 
these things ' {'PjDjn), RV ' I will cause ... to in- 

So ' to be possessed of ' a thing is to inherit it, 
to have it in possession, Jos 22' ' the land of their 
possession, wliereof they were possessed.' Cf. 
Fuller, ffuli/ Warre, 213, 'Charles subdued Man- 
fred and Comadine his nephew . . . and was 
possessed of Sicilie, and lived there.' The active 
lorm is found in Knox, Eist. 265, ' Them hee 
possessed in the Land of Canaan.' 

To be possessed with a spirit (of goodt or evil) 
is in Ac 8" 16'* simply to be 'held' by the spirit, 
but elsewliere means to be under the influence of a 
demon (oaijno;'ij'6/it<'os). See next article. 

J. Hastings. 

POSSESSION means the control or mastery of the 

* The Greek of this familiar passage is it r^ itwtfcnri ufjtait 
KTT.fftffHi T«,- ^J/fvaf iiMait. There is a various reading *T*i;r«rCi 
for K-rirtsdt well supported and adopted by Tischendorf. But 
with either form the meaning is 'gain possession of,' 'win' 
(ItV), not ' hold in possession,' which would demand the perf. 
t«nse. The Vulg. gives posnidebilis, after which Wye. 'ye 
schulen wclde ' ; Tina, has ' With youre pacience possesse youre 
soules,' and he is followed pretty closely by subsequent versions, 
the meaning probably always being ' win.' But that the modern 
misunderstanding is not very modern may be shown from 
Clement Cotton's tr. of Calvin's laaiah 403 (p. 400), "He is 
earnest in giving of hope to the godly, wishing them to possesse 
their soules in patience, until the Prophets were sent unto them 
with this Joyfuli and comfortable message.' The Latin is t^ua 
patientfir ticvorcnt morcB tcedium. 

t Cf. TincKile's Workt, 1. 97, "The Faith only maketh a man 
safe, good, righteous, and the friend of God . , , and pciMesseth 
lu with the Spirit of God.' 

will of an individual by another and superhuman 
personality. This is a familiar feature in early 
Jewish psychological beliefs, bountl up with the 
prevalent demonology and angelology of pre-exilian 
and post-exilian Israel. See art. Demon in vol. L, 
and for NT especially, p. 593. 

That psychological relations were in primitive 
times construed in material and spatial forms 
need not be argued here. It is obvious even from 
a superficial examination of the language em- 
ployed. Thus in 1 S 16" the ' evil spirit from 
God' is said to be upon (Si) Saul, and the same 
preposition is employed in Is 61' of the spirit with 
which God inspires tiie prophet. Cf. the use of 
the phrase ' the hand of the Lord w as upon . . .' 
The spirit of God passed into (3 n^)/) S:iul when he 
prophesied (1 S 10'" 18'»). On the otlier hand, in 
1 S 16''' the evil spirit is said to terrify (ni'3) Saul. 
In the vision of Micaiah the deceiving spirit pro- 
ceeds from the presence of Jehovah, and is ' in the 
mouth' of His prophets (1 K '22--). 

The same language, therefore, is employed of 
Divine inspiration as of possession by an evil spirit. 
The supernatural agency was considered to pass 
into the individual and take possession of him, 
and he became visibly ati'ected thereby. The lips 
of the prophet were for the time under the control 
of the Divine supernatural will, wliich spake by 
the mouth of the holy prophets (Lk 1™; but the 
same power might also cause dumbness, cf. \'v.^"- --) 
While admitting that in some cases we have no 
more than the inevitable language of metaphor, 
the cumulative evidence of analogy leads us to 
refrain from pressing this view unduly. Thus the 
necromancer was considered to be occupied for the 
time by the spirit of the dead, and was said to be 
3i.s' Si's, though language in this case appears to 
invert the relation (see Necrojnancy under SOR 
CERY). Similarly, the demon or evil spirit was 
believed to enter or pass out of the human subject 
or to be driven out. While subject to his influence, 
the individual was said to be SaiiiovL^liiuvoi (in 

Arab. ^»jk,sv« mejmiin, or possessed by a Jinn). 

Demon - possession was manifested by anything 
abnormal in personal appearance, especially in the 
strange look of the eyes. Among the many stories 
about 3&.n related by Doughty in his Arabia 
Dcserta (vol. ii. p. 188 fF.) the following statement 
by Amm Mohammed is a good illustration : — 

'Last year a jinn entered into this woman, my wife, one 
evening : and we were sitting here, as we sit now ; I, and the 
woman, and Hasej-n. I saw it come in her eyes, tltut were 
fi.xed, all in a moment ; and she lamented with a labouring in 
her throat. . . . This poor woman had great white rolling eyes, 
and little joy in them ' (p. 191). 

Anything of an unhealthy nature, such as an 
uncanny expression ; any disease, and especially 
epilepsy or insanity, was ascribed to demon- 
})ossession. Epilepsy, in fact, derives its name 
(^7riXT)^(s, iTn\-q\pia) from having been regarded as 
due to an assault by demons (cf. Mk 9'^). In New 
Hebrew the epileptic patient is called nsjj ' over- 
powered ' (cf. Syr. ^2iI3). In the NT the demon 
was said to ' bind' (Stii'), seize and rend (xaiaXa- 
pdv and p-ftaaeiv in the graphic passage Mk 9'*), 
enter and pass out of {elaipxfirOai and (^ipxeaffat) 
the liuman subject. The terms predicated of the 
human subject ni.ay be found in art. Demon, vol. 
1. p. 593. Animals were likewise ati'ected, Mk 5'^. 

Among the Jews and other nations of antiquity 
magical formuliE were employed in which the 
potent names of supernatural powers were recited. 
Among the Jews this was cliieily the name of 
Jehovah varied in all possible forms, while among 
the Christians the name of Christ was so em- 
ployed. See article Magic and also Exorcism 




Other remedies of a material cliaracter were also 
useil. It is Uoulitful whether in Ja 5'* there is 
anything of a magical or semi-magical character, 
implying a belief in demon-possession. It should 
he noticed, however, that in this case the ' name ' 
was invoked, just as in exorcisms. 

Owen C. Whitehocse. 

POST. — i. Door or gate-post. — 1. S:x, rendered 
' lintel ' in 1 K 6^' (RVni ' posts '), where, probably, 
the stone case of the door is intended ; aa also in 
Ezk 40 and 41, where KV prefers 'jambs' to AV 
'posts.' It is derived from Sik as indicating what 
projects in front of or around the door. 2. n-pN 
(possibly from Dx in a metajiliorical sense), once 
rendered by AV 'posts' (Is 6'); KV substitutes 
'foundations.' 3. nriD, from an unused root m ' to 
move oneself about,' applied to the post on whicli 
the hinges turn. In later times the name was 
transferred to the small cylinder attached to tlie 
doorpost, containing a strip of parchment on which 
are written these two pa-ssages, viz. Ut 6*'' and 
ll""". Every pious person on passing out or in 
touches this reverently, and tlien kisses his finger. 
4. "jB, from root •■,5d ' to spread out,' rendered ' post' 
three times in AV (2 Ch 3', Ezk iV^ Am 9'). In 
each RV rightly .substitutes 'threshold.' 

On the doorposts the blood of the lamb was 
sprinkled (Ex 12' etc.) ; and here the words of the 
law were to be written (Dt 6' etc., see No. 3, above). 
Moslems copy the Jews in writing verses from the 
Koran on their doorposts. The German Temjile 
Christians in Palestine have engraved a text of 
Seri[iture over every doorway in their colonies. A 
servant who Nvished not to avail himself of the law 
of freedom was brought by his master ' unto God,' 
'unto the doorpost,' and his ear pierced with 
an awl (Ex 21"). A special sanctity seems in the 
East always to gather round the doorway (see art. 
THltE.silOLD). To this it may be due that while 
the woodwork of the temple was of Lebanon cedar, 
the doorposts were made of native-grown olive 
(1 K6^). 

ii. Carrier of letters or despatches. — p, pi. D'r] 
('runners'), once (2 K II") I'V"!, from pi 'ta run.' 
The 'runners' formed the roj'al guard (I S 22", 
see art. GUAUD), kept the king's house, and were 
available for other service (1 K H""-, 2 K 1U=» 
11^'). From them were chosen the couriers, who 
conveyed royal mandates throughout the kingdom 
(2 Ch 30", Est 3"- "). Those of the Persian monarch 
were mounted on 'swift steeds' (Est S'^-^RV*). 
The swiftness characteristic of this service gives 
point to the saying of Job 9^ ' My days are swifter 
than a post.' W. EwiNG. 

POT.— See Food in vol. ii. p. 40, s. 'Vessels.' 

POTIPHAR (-B-21S ; I.XX in Gn .S?*" A nerpf^^s, 
E Luc. IIeTf0/);;s, in 39' ADE Luc. llerc^/jijs ; t 
Vulg. Putij,/Mr). 

The name is Rencrally repirded (e.g. by Ebcre, in Smith, Dm 
I. ii. 1794») aa a Ilel). abbreviation of Potlphera in^ X^-t in 
wiiich caae it wouI*l be I'^^'yp. P'-dy-p'-R', and mean * lie 
whom the Ra ^or the Sun-(;od) gave ' ; eoe Setiio, De alejih 
prost/ietieo in lingua cog. verln formis prwpimto, 1802, p, 31 
(a reference, (or which tlie writer is infieiitt-d to .Mr. F. lA. 
Oritlith), wlio quotes as parallel form.itions J^'-dij-'lmn 'Ho 
whum Ammon ffave,' P'-dy-'tt * Ho wliom Isis gave.' Sotlio 
also observes that in Oreelt transcriptions the first two syllables 
are commonly represented by IIiti-, as in Hiti;^ itself, Hiti- 
Keit, niTioe^T«/>ni, niri3;iw»r(f, lUreffiptt, etc., and refers, for a 
long list of such names, fBm papyri and other sources, to 

*The rendering *ne\ft steeds' is probaT)le, but not certain 
T^yy (a rare eynon}in of ciO) denotes a species of horse posscHsod 
of some valuable quality, wtiich may lilcely enough have been 

t The form UuTKprit Is also found, as in ed. Aid., and a 
15th cent. SiS ap. Lagarde, (/<-7». Urarce [cf. p. 20] ; Philo, i. 
134, n04 (Jliing.); Cramer, Anecd. Par. ii. 174, 46 <P«Hhey. 
p. 78). liut it IS certainly false (Grillltli). 

Parthey, .r.g. Personennameix, 1804, p. 79 JT. Lieblein's pro- 
posal (J'.-iL'A, 1698, p. 208 1.) to identiiy Totipliar' with the 
isolated and uncertain Pt-ber (p. 24 n.*), does not malce the 
etymology any clearer. 

The name of the 'officer' (o-iy, lit. eunuch) of 
Pharaoh, and ' captain of the Ijody • guard ' (v 
D'C;?Ci ; see vol. ii. p. 768" n. X), to whom Joseph 
was sold by the Midianites (Gn 37^), and who 
apjiointed Joseph to wait upon the prisoners con- 
lined in the state-prison ((6. p. 768 n. ||), which 
was in his (40'") ; in the existing text of 
Gn,, the Egyptian who made Joseph sujier- 
intendcnt of his liousehold, and whose wife made 
the advances to Joseph which the latter rejected 

It is doubtful whether these two personages are not in reality 
distinct. Gn 37*' 40ii''- belong to E, and Sil'if- to J ; and tliere 
are strong reoiions (cf. ib. pp. 707**, 7(38 n. §) for sunposing, as is 
done by nearly all modern critics, tliat the words ' Poliphar, 
an oiricer (eunuch) of Pharaoli's, the captain of tlie ^'uard' in 
39^ are an addition made by the redactor, who identifR-d 
Joseph's 'master,' mentioned in cli. 39, witll l*otipliar. the 
' capt;vin of the body-guard,' of 37^6 40-'**- ; if tliis view be 
correct, the original narrative of ch. 39 (J) knew nothing of 
'Poliphar,' but simply mentioned 'an' (unnamed) ' I^^gyjitian,' 
to wliom the Islimaelites sold Joseph. It may be noticed 
that, ill the existing narrative, the description, *an Egyptian,' 
attached in .391 to ' Potiphar, an eunuch of Pharaoh's,' etc., 
seems a rather pointless a<]dition, whereas, standing alone it 
would have an a<iequate raisoti d'etre. 

The ' captain of the guard ' was not a specially 
Egyptian ollice ; the same title (with only 3T for 
V) being used also of a cliief otlicer of Ncbuciiad- 
nezzar ('2 K 25" al. ; see above, ii. 708" n. }). The 
number of court- and state-otiicials mentioned in 
Egyji. inscriptions is very great (Ebers, .r*'^. u. 
die Bb. Mose's, p. 300 ; and esp. Hrugsch, Die 
^iji/ptologie, 1889, pp. 213 f., 222-227, '243 f., 299- 
301); but the office attributed to Potijiliar does 
not ajipear to have been definitely ideiitilicd : per- 
haps it was that of ' the general and eldest of the 
court' of the Hood-papyrus, an important official, 
whom Brugsch (p. 213) and Maspero (Juurn. As. 
188H (xi.), p. 273) identify witli the apxio-u^aro- 
(j>v\a^, often mentioned in the Ptolemaic period ; 
see Grcnfell, Greek Pap. 1890, 38. 1, 4'2. 1 ; .M. L. 
Strack, Die dyn. der Plul. 1897, p. 21911'., In.scr. 
No.s. 77 ( = CIG 4677), 95, 97 (VIU 2617), 108 
(CJG 4893), 109, 111, 171; Jos. Ant. xil. ii. 4 
(cf. 2).* Eunuchs were apparently not as common 
in ancient Egypt as in other countries, though 
they seem to be represented on the iiioiiuments 
(Ebers, I.e. p. 298) ; it is, however, possible that 
saris is used in the more general sense of officer, — 
neither the 'captain of the body-guard,' nor the 
chief butler or baker (to both of whom the same 
term is applied in 40-- 'j, hiilding a kind of office 
which would 1)0 very naturally deputed to a 
eunuch (thougli cf. Jos. Ant. XVI. viii. 17, — cup- 
bearers at Herod's court): Ges., however (Thes, 
p. 973), doutits this general application of tlie 
term ; and LXX, at any rate, have airabuv in 37** 
and eivovxo^ in 39'. If the name Potiphar did not 
occur in the original text of ch. 39, the question 
of his marriage does not arise ; it may be men- 
tioned, however, that (assuming the word .«jn.j 
to have its ])roper force) cases are on record, in 
both ancient and modern times, of eunuchs being 
mairied (IJurckhardt, Arabia, i. 290; Ebers, p. 

On the narrative of ch. 39 enough has been said 
above, vol. ii. jip. 708", 772. It is remarkable that 

•Of course D'nDC.I lb' means properly 'chief (or superin- 
tendent)of the Blaughtcrers((W cooks (IS 923])' ; and, in npiteof 
2 I\ 'i6s etc., it vii'^)ht in Genesis have this meaning (cf. L.XX 
etpxtf'^yfipo^)'- in this case, the expression miglit(as Mr. firittlth 
snggcHls) denote the 'royal cook,' an otlicial who acquired at 
Tliebes in tlie New Einiiire many important adniinislriitive 
functions— -lea<iing cxpe<litions to tlie quarries, investigating 
tomb-robberies, etc. (see Eniian, .J'lgiipten, Index, t.v. "Truch- 
scss ' ; and comp. above, vol. ii. p. 774, the note on Ab). 




names of the form ' Potiiihera,' ' Potipliar' (if this 
be riglitly regarded as really the same name), 
apijear lirst in the 2'Jnd dyu. (llie dyu. of ShishaU),* 
and are frequent only in the 20th dyu. (B.C. Glii- 
5i')); it is thus at least doubtful how far either one 
or the other really springs from the age of Joseph 
(see, further, vol. L BOo'', ii. 775*). 

S. R. Driver. 
POTIPHERA (!)"!? -c^E ; LXX A n£Tpe<^7]s, E Luc. 
Tlereippiji -.f Vulg. Pulip/uire; on the etym. see 
under PoTirilAR). — The priest — i.e., no doubt, the 
chief priest— of On (which see), — i.e. of the famous 
and ancient temple of the Sun, at On, — whose 
daughter Asenath was given by Pharaoh to Joseph 
for a wife (Gn 41«- <" 46-"}. S. K. Driver. 

POTSHERD.— This is the translation in Job 2^, 
Ps 22'^, Pr •iG-', and Is 45" "* of b-in hercs, which is 
rendered ' sherd ' in Is 30", Ezk 23^, but elsewhere 
(usually with •'??) ' earthen vessel.' Potsherd occurs 
also in Sir 22' as tr. of oaTpaKov, which is the LXX 
word for herci in Job 2', Ps 22'S Pr 26-^ Is 30". 
The Eng. word, which is a sherd (shred) or frag- 
ment of pottery, is illustrated by Skelton's (Skeat's 
Specimens, 143) — 

* But this madde Amalecke, 
Lyke to a Muuielek, 
He regardeth lonles 
No more than potshordefl ' — ' 

and Spenser, FQ vi. i. 37— 

• They hew'd their helmes, and plates asunder brake. 
As they had potshares bene.' 

In translating, the distinction has to be made be- 
tween ' earthen vessel ' and ' fragment of earthen 
vessel.' The latter is the meaning, according to 
Oxf. Hcb. Lex., in Job 2^ 4P-, Is 30", Ezk 23*". 
RV makes two changes. Job 41^" AV ' sharp stones 
are under him ' is changed into * his underparts 
are like sharp potsherds'; Pr 26^ 'a potsherd' 
becomes ' an earthen vessel.' J. HASTINGS. 

POTTAGE (TiJ naztd, LXX liti?A«i, Vulg. mil- 
mentum). — A kind of thick broth made by boiling 
lentils or other vegetables with meat or suet, 
usually in water, but sometimes in milk. Robin- 
son says that lentil pottage made in this manner 
is very palatable, .and that he ' could very well con- 
ceive, to a weary hunter, faint with hunger, they 
(lentils) might be quite a dainty ' (i. 167). Thomson 
speaks of its appetizing fragrance, which it dili'uses 
far and wide ; and he gives an account of a meal 
in which this pottage was eaten out of a s.aucepan 
placed on the giound in the middle of the com- 
pany, a cake of bread, doubled spoon - f.ashion, 
being di]iped in the pot to carry tne pottage to 
the mouth. ' European children born in Palestine 
are extravagantly fond of it' {L. and B. i. 252). 
The pottage prepared by Jacob was of the red 
lentil (see Food, vol. ii. 27), hence Esau's emphatic 
' the red, this red ' (Gn 25*"). For a mess ot this, 
called in He 12'" (Spua-n fila ('a mess of meat'), 
Esau sold his birthright. Labat in his account 
of the visit of the Chevalier d'Arvieu:; to Hebron 
in 1060 says that at the entrance to St. Helena's 
Church, now a mosque, there is a great kitchen 
where pottage is daily prepared of lentils and 

* For the name 'Petn-baal' cited above, vol. ii. 774» n. ^, is 
very doubtful, Mr. GrilKth infomis the writer, in both meaning 
and' date. It is properly Pt-ber (Liehlein, IHct. des Somi 
liUrofjl. No. 553): and 'though ber is the correct spelling tor 
Baal, there is no determinative to show that it was intended 
lor that. I*t, also, is not the same as r'-d;i (in P'-dy- Imn, 
etc, above); ;ind it is dittlcult to find a meaning for it. The 
name is at present known only to occur once : and it may be 
wrongly copied, or may not be a compound at all. The period 
to wiiich it belongs is also quite uncertalti : it may be that of 
the Hyksos ; but it may also be earlier, or much later.' 

♦ Also ni»Ti;^f, ed. Aid., and the MS cited p. 23 n. t ; 
Euseb. PrcKp. Ho. Ix. 21. 9; Cramer, Aiifcd. Par. ii. 176. 14; 
Fabric. Cod. PaeitdepUjr. ii. 86 (Parthey. p. 7S). 

other vegetables in commemoration of this event, 
which is supposed to have taken place here (?), 
and is freely distributed to all comers ; ' We have 
partaken of it' (ii. p. 237). This practice does not 
seem to be kept up at the ])resent day. 

Pottage was known in Egypt at an early period, 
and was called fisAfZ (Copt. uOlTcy). Wilkinson 
has copied a tomb-painting representing a man 
cooking this food (ii. 34, lig. 301, 0). In Palestine 
a variety of vegetables entered into its composi- 
tion, as in Scotch broth. Apparently the globe 
cucumber (Cucumis prvphctarum),a, common plant 
about Samaria, was sometimes used to thicken it ; 
and we are told in 2 K 4^" that one of the 'sons 
of the prophets' mistook r^y;/ ny^s, probably the 
violently purgative Citrnllus colocynthi.'s, for this 
plant. The colocynth is common in the Shephelah 
and about the shores of the lower Jordan Valley, 
but not in the middle higher lands (see Food, 
vol. ii. p. 28). 

The prophet Haggai names pottage with bread, 
wine, and oil as the coiumun articles of diet which 
a priest, bearing holy flesh, would be likely to 
touch inadvertently with the skirt of his garment 
(2'-). Adzid, being chiefly mtule of vegetables, 
ditters from pdrdk (only in const, pcrah. Is 65* 
Kethihh), which seems to have been a kind of 
minced collops made of meat disjointed, or flnely 
cut up and boiled in water (cf. ' mortrewes and 
potages' below). Kerc has merak, as in Jg G"*- -", 
a name which is also applied to the same dish. 
Some suppose these to be soup poured over broken 

The word 'pottage' was originally the same 
as the French potivje and spelled like it, as in 
Chaucer's Proloyuc ta the Pardoners Tale, 82, and 
Piers Plowman, who writes ' potage and paj'n 
(bread) ynough' (Te.\t B. xv. 310), 'mortrewes 
(pounded meat) and potages' (ii. xiii. 41). In the 
Buke of Cartiisi/c, whose date is uncertain, prob- 
ably about 1460, potage is the flrst course at 
dinner (iii. 765), and is to be eaten without ' grete 
sowndynge ' (i. 69). In the 1557 ed. of Seager'a 
Schoole of Vertue (iv. 444), it appears with two t's, 
and it is spelled as we now have it in all editions 
of the English Bible from 1560 to the present. In 
Russell's Bvke of Nurture, dating from about 
1460, there is a section on difl'erent kinds of 
potages. A. Macalister. 

POTTER, POTTERY.— The art of the potter 
(Heb. isv or n>', ptcp. of is; 'to form or fashion'; 
Gr. Kepa/xti/s) can be traced back to a very early 
date in Egypt, and within recent years there have 
been considerable ' linds' in Palestine of specimens 
of pottery, some of which are much older than the 
date of the Isr.aelite conquest. Upon the ground 
esjiecially of the discoveries at Tell el-IIesy (? Lach- 
ish). Flinders Petrie has sought to construct a 
complete history of the pottery of Palestine, which 
be divides into three periods (see the following 
article, and compare Petrie and Conder in PEFHt, 
1891, p. esir. ; also Nowack, Lehrb. dcr Reh. Arch. 
i. 26511'. ; Benzinger, Ilch. Arch. 26111'.). The pro- 
ducts of the potter's industry would naturally he 
little used bj' the Israelites duritig the nomadic 
period of their existence, when vessels of skin or 
of wood must have been found more serviceable 
than those of earth (Nowack, I.e. p. 242 ; Ben- 
zinger, I.e. p. 214). Even after they entered 
Canaan, the Israelites appeal to have been slow to 
adopt the vessels of the potter ; a skin is still used 
for holding milk (Jg 4>»), wine (1 S 16=»), or water 
(Gn 21'"-); the Heb. in the first two of these pas- 
sages is 1X3, ill the third n-n, the Gr. in all three 
is diTK6s. The earliest mention of pottery in ths 
OT is in 2 S 17^, where, ammigst the articles 
brcmght to David during his flight from Absalom, 



were ' earthen vessels ' (ij\' "^J ; B <r«i}ij darpiKipa, 
A om.). 

Both in the OT and in the Apocrypha there are 
allusions to the various processes curried on by 
the potter. He treads the clay (itn) with his feet 
(Is 41^, Wis 15'), kneads it like dough and places 
it uiion the wheel, or rather wheels- (c:;:n Jer 18'; 
LXX iirl Till \L8uii/, iniplj-iiig a reading c;:;Nn). The 
'ohnniiiiii (a dual form used elsewhere only in 
Ex 1'" of the ' birth-stool') consisted, as the name 
implies, of tico discs of wood, connected by a 
wooden pivot, and arranged the one above the 
other, the under wheel being the larger of the two. 
T!ie wheels, which were capable of being revolved 
in oppor,ite directions, were set in motion by the 
foot of the potter, who sat at his work. All these 
points, as well as the processes of tiring and glazing, 
are referred to in Sir SS-"-"- (cf. the illustrations in 
Wilkinson, Anc. Egyp. 1837, iii. 164). The first of 
these processes, the firing, perhaps explains Ps 22" 
' My palate [reading "n for 'na ' my strength '] is 
dried up like a potsherd' (ir-jj, darpaKov). The 
glazing process, in which the oxide of lead obtained 
m the course of refining silver was chiefly employed, 
gives jKiint to the saying of Pr 20-^ ' Fervent [or 
perhaps 'smooth,' see Toy, ad loc.'\ lips and a 
wicked heart are like an earthen vessel overlaid 
with silver dross' (errrS'i. nsja D':'P I?? ; LXX 
ipyi'piov Siddficvov ncrdi d6Xou Giffirep CffrpaKOv rjyqr^oi'). 

Under the later kings the industry of the 
potter was so familiar as to furnish the prophets 
with figures in addressing their hearers. The 
cla-ssic instance of this is Jer 18, where the prophet 
describes how he paid a visit to the house of the 
potter,* and found him fashioning a work on tlie 
wheels. ' And when the vessel that he made of 
the clay was marred in the hand of the potter, he 
made it again another vessel, as seemed good to 
the potter to make it' (v.*). The lesson drawn is, 
'Cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the 
Loud. Behold, as the clay in the potter's hand, so 
are j-e in mine hand, O house of Israel ' (cf. Is 29" 
is-* 04'*, Wis lo'"-, and the famous ar^ment of St. 
Paul in Ro 9^"-, a passage which will be fully dis- 
cussed in art. Predestination, along with which 
it will be well to refer to banday-Headlam's 
'Romans' in Internal. Crit. Cumm. ad loc). 
Again, in .Ter W- a potter's earthen bottle (pzpj 
bnT iji", LXX /3i/c4s ir(Tr\aaiiLivoi irrpiKivos) is pur- 
chased by the prophet, and afterwards broken in 
typical allusion to the approacliing irretrievable 
nun of the nation (cf. Ps 2^ = Rev 2-'', Is 30"). 

A guild of (jotters is mentioned by the Chronicler 
(1 Ch 4^). In V the 'earthen vessel' (iy^n '';3) is 
repeatedly mentioned : Lv 6^ [Heb. "] as used for 
boiling the flesh of the sin-oll'ering ; 11" as defiled 
by contact with unclean animals ; 14°- *' one of the 
two birds offered on behalf of tlie cleansed leper or 
leprous house is to be killed ' in an earthen vessel 
over running water' [i.e. so as to lot the blood 
drop into tlie vessel and mingle with tlie water 
contained in it] ; 15" as defiled by an issue ; Nu 5" 
as used to contain the water in the jealousy ordeal. 
In all these instances the LXX 1ms oKcios darpd- 
Kivov except in Lv 14' and Nu 5", in both of which 
it has &.-f^i.w darpiKtvop. Ill Jer 32''' we read of a 
le''al document (the deed of purchase of Ilanamel's 
field) being kept in an earthen vessel. 

The figure of the potter at work is more or less 
consciously present in a number of instances where 
the verb ns' is employed to describe tlie Divine 
activity in creating or fashioning men or other 
objects : Jahweh forms man of dust from the 
ground, (In 2'; beasts and birds from the ground, 
v.'»; Israel as a people. Is 27" 43'--' 44=' 45'''"«" 49» 

• Situated probably near the Rate Ilnreith (Jer lff> RV), or 
gaU' of tbe potsherds ■ (?), a name perhajw derived from the 
quantity of potstierda thrown out there. See Uarsitu. 

(even from the womb) 64' ; the individual Israelite, 
Is 43'; Jeremiah in the womb, Jer 1'; the eye oi 
man, Ps 1)4-'; the locust. Am 7'; Leviathan, Ps 
104-»j the dry land, Ps 95'; the earth. Is 45'""'; 
the mountains. Am 4'^; the universe {h"), Jer 
10" = 51". The figure appears to be lost sight of, 
and "IS" simply = ' lorra,' in such instances as Is 45' 
the forming of light, Ps 74" summer and winter. 
Zee 12' the si)irit of man, Ps 33" the hearts of 
men. is" is also used figuratively of fashioning, i.e. 
foreordaining, an event or situation, Is 22" 37* 
(=2 K 19") 46", Jer 33-, cf. Ps 139«. 

The potter's clay and the vessels fashioned from 
it are emblems in Scripture of what is feeble or of 
little value. In Un 2'" the feet of the image .seen 
in vision by Nebuchadnezzar are described as part 
of iron and part of potter's clay (Aram. ^^:"^ i-fiu ; 
Theod. B simply iarpiKivov, A*'""»' iurpixKivov Kep- 
afiiou ; LXX oarpaKov KcpafUKOv), which leads to tbe 
interpretation, ' the kingdom shall be partly strong 
and partly broken' (RV^in 'brittle,' Aram. n-;';fi, 
Tlieoa. ffvvTpLfSufievovy LXX avvTerpip.txii'Op). In La 4- 
we have the forcible contrast : ' The precious sous 
of Zion, comparable to fine gold, how are they 
esteemed as earthen pitchers, the work of the 
hands of the potter ' (is'v '3; nt",;? b-jn-'^zj^, LXX eh 
&yyta dtxTpdKipa, fpya x^^P^p KepafUw%). Again, in 
2 Co 4' St. I^aul declares, ' We have this treasure 
[sc. the ministry entrusted to him] in earthen 
vessels ' {(p dtrrpaKlpoi! iXKereaip), perhaps in allusion 
especially to the weak bodily frame ot the apostle. 
' In a {jreat house there are not only vessels of gold 
and ot silver, but also of wood and of earth,' 
2 Ti 2^ (ir/tei>i) ScrrpaKipa) ; cf. also Is 29" 45». 

Zee 11" is a diflieult passage, especially when 
considered in connexion with Mt 27'"-. The Mas- 
soretic text is thus rendered in RV: 'The Lord 
said unto me. Cast it unto the potter, the goodly 
price that I was prised [sic] at of tlioiii. And I 
took the thirty pieces of silver and cast them unto 
the potter in the house of the Lord.' Instead of 
Ti;vn-^>.s 'unto the potter,' Geseuius (Thes.) follows 
the Syr. in reading lyiNrr^N 'into the treasury.' 
This is adopted also by G. A. Smith, Wellhausen, 
Nowack, and others. The LXX has els rb xwfu- 
rfipiop, ' into the smelting furnace.' The words -iux 
and isT might all the more readily lie confused 
owing to the tendency of k to pass into ■ between 
two vowels. It is not improbable, however, that 
the Massoretes purjiosely obscured the reading 
isiK from a feeling that the paltrj' wage wliicli 
was unworthy of the prophet's acceptance could 
not fittingly be cast into the treasury of God. In 
like manner the chief priests in Mt 27" say of the 
thirty jiieces of silver returned by Judas, 'It is 
not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it 
is the price of blood.' Accordingly, Uiey took 
counsel and bought with them the potter s field 
to bury strangers in. In this Mt characteristi- 
cally di.scovers a fulliliucnt of proiihecy, and it is 
maiiifcstly the prophecy of Zee 11" that is in 
view, although it is attributed to Jeremiah, and 
quoted in a form that agrees neither with the MT, 
of which we have just quoted the translation, nor 
with the LXX. Iho substitution of Jeremiah for 
Zechariah is no doubt simply due to u Inpstts 
memuriiE, which might occur all the more reiidily 
in view of the allusions to lUe jjufter in Jer IS and 
19, and the narrative of the i)urclia8e of a Jicld 
from Hanamel in 32'"''-. The following are the 
leadings of the L.\X (B) of Zee 11" and of the pro- 
fessed quotation in Mt 27"'- (according to \V H's 

Zee 11". 

Mt 27«- 

Kol flirtK Ki'pios jrpJt /li, Kal (Xa^op t4 TpioVoro 
Kddes avTobs th rb ;tw»'f v- ipyupia, rifp Ttfiijp toO reri- 
Ttipiop, Kal aKlyfiop-ai (A ix-ii)Upov Sp iri/i^aaPTO Art 




Zucll'^ Mt27'"-. 

aK^^pai ai'T6) (I SbKt^bv viCjv 'Itrpai/X, A'ai idunav 

(IJtfort AXli iSoKijxdffOrii') avTCL ei5 Tiv 07^61' rod 

Toi'S TpiaKovTa dpydpovs Kal p-oi. Kt'ptos. 
iifi^oKov ai'TOL'S els rbv (A 
oin. Tjt') ou'd;* Kt'/jfoL' els 

KV in Mt 'And they (mars. 'I') took the tliirty 
jiieces of silver, the jirice of liim that was ])riceil, 
wliom (certain) of the chihhen of Israel diil price 
(niarg. 'whom they priced on the part of^ tlie 
sons of Israel'), and they (mars. 'I') S-'ave them 
for the potter's field, as the Lord ajipointed nie.' 
The reading 'potter' is thus retained (altliou^h 
there apjiears to he in the context a consciousness 
also of the reading 'treasury'), the language is 
aeeomniodated to cover tlie purchase hy the priests 
of the potter's field, and tiie passage has mani- 
festly a ^Messianic character imi)osed upon it (see, 
further, AVellhausen, Die klcincn rroplictcn, ad 
lor., and arts. Akeldama, and Quotations "Ed 
and J It). J. A. Selbie. 

POTTERY. — Materials for the study of the 
pottery of Southern Palestine from 1700 to 300 B.C. 
were furnished by the systematic exca\ation of 
the mound Tell el-IJesy by I'etrie and Bliss, 1S90- 
93 (see art. Lachish). At this site was found a 
series of sujierimposed mud-brick towns, eight in 
number, each distinguished by its own types of 
pottery. The already-dated foreign types (tlreek 
and Phoenician) furnished a scale for approxi- 
mately dating the local ware \vitli which tliey 
were associated, or which they overlaid. The 
results obtained at Tell el-Hesy have since been 
confirmed and amplified by extensive excavations 
at three other mounds. Tell Zakariya, Tell es- 
Safi, and Tell ej-.hideideli, as well as at Jerusalem. 
IJrieHy, these results are as follows. The jne- 
Seleucidan potterj' may be divided into three 
groups — (1) earlier pre - Israelite ; (2) later pre- 
Israelite ; (3) Jewish. 

(1) The corlicr pri-Israelite-Kuxe has been found, 
nnmixed with other styles, on the rock or virgin 
soil at three sites. Tlie tyjies include — (n) large 
Iiowls with very thick brims, the interior being 
faced with red or yellow and burnislied with lines 
sometimes crossing ; (h) large jars with flat disc 
bottom, invecked necks, and ornamented with a 
cable - moulding ; (c) jars with surfaces scraped 

historic ; he suggests a Lybian origin. All 
characteristics come down to later times, especially 



(Early Pre-Israc-lite.) 

the patterned burnishing, which is found in a 
debased form in Jewisli jars. 

('2) 'fhe Ititi'r jirr-lsracl'le ware comes down to 
Jewish times, and is found in connexion witli 
known ' PhuMiician ' types, ranging from about 
1400 to 1000 B.C., and with Mycena'an ware of the 
same period. The most chavacteristic native forms 
are — (^0 tlie 0]ien lamps and bowls, both with 
rounded bottom, often found puriiosely buried in 
groups ; (i) ware with painted ornament, consist- 

over with a comb and having ledge-handles of a 
wavy shape. These liandlcs are typical of certain 
Egyptian pottery, reganled by" I'etrie as ))re- 


ing chiefly of birds, zigzags, and spirals ; (c) small 
flasks Willi pointed bottoms ; (d) stands for hold- 
ing these ; (e) female figiuines {lerdphiin). 

(3) The ware we call .Jeiriih appears to be char- 
acteristic of the later Jewish monarchy, when the 



local pre-Israelite and the riiccnician typt's hail 
bluiuled ami had become debased. The eoiii- 
iiioiicst types are — {a) cooking pots (blackened 
with smoke), ■with large Avide mouths and small 
handles ; (b) open lamps, with thick disc bases ; 


(c) tiny rude black jugs ; ((/) flasks \\ith long neck 
and stand, out of all ]iroportion to the small boily ; 
(c) large jars with ribbed handles, stamped. Tlie 
stamjis are of tlirce classes : stars of various 
forms; ellipse containing name of tlie owner or 
zuaker in old Hebrew letters ; royal stamps. The 


latter show a creature in two varieties, one with 
two cxjianded wings, the other with four. The 
se<M>nd tyjie is clearly a sirtnthrriis, Aliove tlie 
symbol is invarialily the legend ■''cS ; below, the 
name of a town, as .laiff. As this v are appears to 
date from the time of the Jewish monarcliy, the 
reading ' lielonging to the king of Sliocoh' is un- 
tenable. Accordingly we should rather read : 'To 
the king: (deilicated by) Sbocoh.' Thus far three 
names of known towns have been recovered, 
Sliocoh, Hebron, and Zipli, as well as the name 
rr:D, which is not mentioned in the liible. As to 
the t.\act meaning of the stamp, several liy- 
l>otheses have been hroiight forward. l""rom the 
di.scovery of these stamped bamiles at .Icrusaleni 
It has iieen argued that they belonged to jars 
containing oil, wine, or other tril ute sent to 
the cajiital by the towns meiitioneil. The wi<Iu 
geographical distribution (sucli as the finding of 
tlie stani]) with Sliocoh at live dill'erent sites) 
suggests that the place-names were those of 
royal iiotteries, situated at Hebron, Ziph, tjhocoh, 

Associated with the above-mentioned Jewish 
types we Hnd tJrcek pottery, chielly ribbed bowls, 

and large amphora; with loop handles. The red 
and black figured ware was also ini|)orted. 

The pust-Sclciiridan [Kjllery of Palestine has not 
been as carefully studied as the earlier tyjies. 
The .Seleucidan tonus are similar to those lound 
at Alexandria. Khodian jar-handles stamped with 
Greek names are common. Koinan sites contain 
the well-known ribbed aiiiphor;e, and tiles with 
the stamp of the tenth legion: I.i;(;(I0) X. FHK- 
(TEXSIS), are common about Jerusalem. In Chris- 

siiJir OF THE lOiii LF.aio.\'. 

tian graves are found many closed lamps, stamped 
with elaborate patterns, sometimes showing crosses 
or a (ireek inscription, as ATXXAPIA K.\AA. 

CIlltlSTlAX I.A511'. 

The same general type extended to Arab times. 
I'inally, we have the Arab glazed ware, found in 
Crusailing sites, such as Blanche Garde at Tell 

LlTBRATCRB.— Petne, Tell cl-IIegij \ Bliss, Mound t>/ ^fan!l 
CilU's ; Reports on the Kxoa\ titiona at Tell Z.akuriva, Tell es- 
Safl. nnd Tell cj-Ju<iei<leh, I'EKSl, tsl)9-190U ; also the (ortli- 
con)ili{; volume on these Excavation!). 

F. J. Bllss. 

Note, — The above illustrations are reproduced with the kind 
permii^siou of the Palestine Exploration Fund Committee. 



FIELD. — See Akelhama and 

POUND.- See Money, 
Wi:i(;iirs .\ni) Measuue.s. 

j1. iii. p. 4iS', and 

POVERTY. — A. In Or.n Testament. — The 
jiaucity of alistract terms in Hebrew is illus- 
traleil by the fact that the words translated 
' poverty^ in KV occur chiefly in the liook of 
Proverbs, and other post-exilic works. These are 
(rt) from ncn, ' to lack ' :— i:ri, licap (cf. iin, ]*irr), 
IvSaa, iiariprifia, etc., etjf-iln.i, etc, ; (A) from c'n : — 
VK-!, c""i, t't, TTCKia, Cffe.stas, etc. The poor are 
freipiently nientione<l, the following terms being 
so tr:inslated : (c) iicn? [cf. ((()]; ('/) c'^, Jitcp. of cm 
(cf. {/>]], Wp!)!, TT-MX'Jt, etc., )i<iii/iir, etc.; (c) from 
n:y ' be boweil down ' :— iji' (Aram.), 'HI 'alllicted,' 
' ])oor,' i}i ' humble,' 'lowly' (see art. Poou), Tror/t, 
TTTiiixo!, Trpadf, Tair^ivit, etc. , pilK/x'r, etc. ; {/) from n:K 
'crave' : — p'3x 'needv,' Wvtjs, irruixAr, etc., pniijiir, 
etc.; (ff) from S>i 'liangdown': — hi 'weak, de- 
pressed,' in Gn 41" of /can cows, Wvtjs, jrrwxo', 
rairtiras, etc., piiiijici; etc.; (/() p^T (Aram.) tinly in 





esiastes, 'poor,' t/^t)!, pauper; (i) the obscure 
doubtful Ty^'^r,, n-i<;)-., in Ps lO^- 1»- ", perhaps 
' liapless,' ir^njj, tttwxo', pauper. 

The causes of poverty, apart from sloth, thought- 
lessness, and extravajjance, were specially — (i.) 
Failure of crops and loss of cattle through bad 
seasons ; thus the Shunainmite left her home- 
stead, by Elisha's advice, to avoid a famine (2 K 
8'"', cf. Neh 5^). At such times the townsfolk 
■would sutler from the high price of food, and the 
falling of!' of trade through the destitution of the 
farmers, (ii.) Hauls ancf invasions, (iii.) Loss of 
property through the violence of the nobles, sup- 
ported by corrupted law courts, e.g. Naboth s 
vineyard (1 K 21) and the appropriation of the 
Shunammite's land during her absence. (iv.) 
Kuinous taxation and forced labour (corv(e) (Neh 
5*-'). (v.) Extortionate usury, which took ad- 
vantage of the distress caused by bad seasons 
and heavy taxes to lend at high interest on the 
security of land. In many instances the debtors 
could not pay, and forfeited land and liberty to 
their creditors (Neh 5'"'). 

In considering the character and extent of 
poverty, stress must be laid on the influence of 
polygamy and slavery. The almost universal 
habit of earlj- marriage which seems to have 
existed amongst freemen, together with concu- 
binage and polygamy, checked the growth of that 
destitution amongst unmarried women which is 
the most painful feature of modem poverty. 
Indeed, if the principles of family and clan life 
had been loyally carried out, a free Israelite could 
want only when the whole family or clan were 
destitute. But actual practice mostly fell far 
short of this ideal. 

Again, with us, the last resort of the poor is 
either the workhouse, or crime, or slow starva- 
tion ; in ancient Israel, the destitute became 
slaves. Indeed, the class corresponding to the 
OT-eat bulk of our poorer workers for wages, both 
domestic and industrial, was the slave - class. 
Hence the article Slave deals with the con- 
dition of the greater portion of the poor. There 
were, however, slaves whose position was much 
more honourable and comfortable than that of 
English labourers, and there were poor who were 
not slaves. Tlie existence of slavery added to the 
resources of the poor man by enlarging his credit : 
he and his family could offer their persons as 
security for loans. 

Again, the mere lack of means, if it did not 
amount to absolut« destitution, was far less dis- 
tressing than with us, because so little was needed 
in the way of house, furniture, clothes, firing, or 
even food. 

The classes of the poor most often mentioned 
are\vidow8 and orphans, and the^mm, or resident 
aliens. The former suffered because the family 
ties were not as real as they were supposed to be, 
the latter because they had no actual family ties, 
and the bond of hospitality was soon strained to 
breaking point (Lv 19'", Dt 14» Ps 94', Jer 22», 
Zee 7'", Ma! 3'). See art. Ger. 

As regards poverty, however, the conditions 
were very different in the four ^eat periods of 
OT history. (1) The Nomadic period. In a nomad 
tribe there were richer and poorer and slaves; but 
the bond of brotherhood in the tribe was kept alive 
by the constant necessity of mutual help and de- 
fence ; and distre.ssful poverty was possible for the 
individual only when the fortunes of the whole 
tribe were at a very low ebb. 

(2) The .Judqei and the Early Monarchy. — 
During this period the clan and family system 
lii.-iintained a great, though perhaps diminishing, 
vitality ; and its influence, as we have said, was 
against the growth of poverty. The great majority 

of free Israelite families held land ; they might 
suffer from bad seasons, and from invasion, oi 
the oppression of powerful fellow-countrymen : ' 
whole families might be swept away by plague 
or famine, carried away captive by the enenij-, 
or reduced to slavery by native oppressors ; but 
with certain exceptions (see below) there was 
little permanent poverty. Gideon says (Jg 6") 
' My clan (lit. 'thousand') is the poorest (S-n) in 
Manasseh, and I am the least in my fatlier's 
house ' ; but the context shows that Gideon was 
fairly well off. It is probabl}' not a mere accident 
that the first mention in history of a class of poor 
freemen comes soon after the establishment of the 
Monarchy. 1 S 22- tells us that there resorted 
unto David 'every one that was in distress (»'!< 
pinD), or in debt, or discontented.' 

In this period, however, certain classes of land- 
less poor seem to have arisen. AVhen the frontier 
receded through the successful attack of a neigh- 
bouring tribe, the Israelite refugees would seek 
shelter amongst their brethren. They could not 
always be provided with land, and probably formed 
a large portion of the gerim, the gcr in this case 
being an Israelite settled in a strange tribe. In 
this period, too, the Levites are apparently both 
landless and poor, e.g. Micah's Levite, Jg 17. 18, 
and the Levite of Jg 19, both of whom were gcrhn ; 
cf. Levi. The scant references to the poor in the 
older (JE) legislation, the Ten Commandments, the 
Book of the Covenant, etc., e.g. Ex 22;'* 23", indicate 
that poverty was not very widespread in this period. 

(3) The Later Monarchy. — We learn from the 
prophets of the 8th cent, that as the Israelite 
kingdoms advanced in wealth and civilization, 

Eauperism developed. The rich added ' house to 
ouse, and field to field' (Is 5"), and the landless 
poor multiplied. 

The growth in luxury led to an increase of the 
artisan class and the town population generally. 
When the tide of prosperity ebbed, these classes 
bore the brunt of bad times. The prophets tried 
to keep the land for the peasant farmers, but their 
efforts were futile. Deuteronomy shows that 
poverty was a serious and widespread evil (10""" 15 23"*- =°24i''--i26i--i5), and frequently refers 
to the Levites as an impoverished class (12"- " 18). 
The Deuteronomic legislation attempted to remedy 
the evil, but it came too late. 

(4) Ajfter the Exile. — The community in Pales- 
tine was poor as a whole, and Neh 5 shows that 
the nobles and priests profited by the misfortunes 
of tlie peasants to absorb their land. The general 
tone of tlie Psalms, and the use of the term 'dndw, 
' lowly,' for the pious Jews, suggest that the bulk 
of the people were permanently poor. See art. 
Poor. The Priestly Code shows great considera- 
tion for the poor (Lv 5' " etc. ig"""* 23-^ 25). 

As the Jews passed from the rule of the Persians 
to that of the Greek kings of Egypt and Syria, the 
bulk of the people, whether in the Dispersion or in 
Syria, became subject, in a measure, to the general 
conditions of social life ; and the information a.s to 
the poor in the ancient classical world will apply to 
that extent to the scattered Jews. But in most 
cities, as in Alexandria, and in many country 
districts, the Jews formed communities bound by 
racial and religious ties. Such ties are very real, 
especially in small societies, when those who own 
them are in the midst of aliens of another faith. 
Poverty might be prevalent, but would be much 
alleviated by mutual helpfulness. In Jewish 
Galilee and Judali there were the agricultural 
settlements, where social conditions were com- 

Saratively simple; and the intensely Jewish city of 
erusaleni, whose size implies a large poor popula- 

• Cf. Nathan's parable, in which the rich man robbed his pool 
neighbour (2 S 12i-«). 




tion. The Bk. of Sirach, the work of a Jenisalem 
Jew, implies a measure of poverty and emphasizes 
the helplessness of the poor before the oppression of 
the rich (7** lO*"- " 13^- ^« 21» 29- 35" 41-) ; biit con- 
veys the impression that the wronj^s and sullorinfis 
of the poor about B.C. 200 were far less grievous 
than in the time of Amos and Isaiah. 

As ris'^.nds jirurision for the poor, there was first 
of all, perhaps mostetiiracious of all, the pos.sihility 
of tiniliiij; sustenance in slaverj', a fate probably 
rcjjaided with less horror, and carrying with it less 
dis;.'race, than the modem workhouse. Before this, 
the poor mifiht Iiave recourse to their family or 
clan. In early times, when each clan inhabited its 
own district, the claims of poorer members com- 
manded recognition ; but as time went on, and the 
clan sj'stem broke up, this resource became less 
and less to be relied on. The successive codes 
sou^'ht to remedy the evil by various enactments. 
In Ex 22^''^ loans are to be without interest, so 
also Dt 15'- ' 24'"- ", Lv 25=^ '■" ; cf. Ps 15" etc. ; and 
in Kx 23" the poor are to have the produce of the land 
in Sabbatical years, so also Lv 2'/'. In Deuteronomy 
tithes are to be given to the poor (H-"* 2G^"- ") ; who 
are to be entertained at the great Feasts (lO"' "; 
cf. Ni'h S'") ; to be allowed to glean, and to have 
sonic-tiling left to glean, to have the right to take 
what giew in the comers of fields, and any sheaves 
that might be forgotten (24'»-i); cf. Lv lO"-'", 
Ku 2-. The most serious attempt to deal with 
poverty was the Law of the Jubilee Year in the 
Priestly Code (Lv 25^-" ; cf. Dt lo''^'"), which, if 
carried out, would have secured the periodical 
restoration of the landless poor to freedom and 
their return to the land, but this law remained an 
ideal. These various provisions were supplemented 
by Almsgiving (which see). 

B. In Nkw Testament.— The term 'poverty, 
iTTuxf'". pavpcrtas, inopia, is used only in 2 Co 
S'-", Rev 2', where it has a general or figurative 
sense ; but the ' poor,' tt^vt;! (2 Co Q"), jrcvix/'us (Lk 
2P), irrax^' (frequently, especially in the Gospels 
and Ja 2), pauper, etc., are often mentioned. As 
regards poverty, the NT period did not ditl'er in 
any essential features from the Greek period. On 
tlie one hand, the exactions of the Herodian and 
Roman officials were probably more severe than 
those of the Greek rulers ; on the other, the duty 
of almsgiving was more diligently inculcated as a 
religious duty which would be richly rewarded. 
In this respect the Christian Church followed in 
the steps of the sj^nagogue. The Churcli at Jeru- 
salem made an abortive experiment in comuiuuism 
(Ac 2*^ 4*^), which ]irobably aggravated its ])Overty ; 
and gave opportunity for tlie collection for ' the 
poor saints at Jerusalem ' which St. Paul organ- 
ized amongst his Gentile converts (Ro 15-", Gal 2'°). 
The early Christian Churclies followed the example 
ol the synagogues in holiling it a duty to provide 
for their poor (Ito 12", 1 Ti G'*, 1 Jn 3'^ etc. ; cf. art. 
' Alma' in Smith and Cheetham's Diet, of Christian 
A utirjuitici). But Ja 2^"' shows that this duty waa 
often neglected. In later times the Jews have 
usually set an example to Christendom by their 
care for their poor co-religionists. 

Wliilo we read that ' the common people {6 iroXis 
iX'Noj, Alk 12'', cf. Jn 12") heard ' Jesus ' gladly,' we 
are not told that His actual disciples wore poor ; 
they rather seeiii to have belonged to the lower 
middle cla.s.s — fi.shermen owning boat-s, tax-collec- 
tors, etc. The early Churcli included many poor, 
and few ricli, powerful, or distinguished members 
(1 Co I-"') ; but Prof. Orr, in his jS'cJilertcd Factors 
in the Sludij of tlie Earbj Progress of Christianity, 
maintains that the strength of the Church lay in 
the middle classes. Cf. Ai,.MS(;iviNo, Family, 


W. 11. Bennett. 

POWER (chielly S'n, ob, IV ; 5wo;«s, ^foco-ia).*— 
1. All the power in the universe is traced in Scrip- 
ture to a siiiritual source. God created all things 
by His word ; and the word being the expression 
ot the will, it is the spiiitual God Himself who 
is the ground and origin of all tliat is (Gn 1. 2, 
Ps SS" US-', Pr 8-™-, Is 401-''-, Jer 32i", Jn P- '"). 
While (iod is the Creator of tlie worhi, and 
continually rules all the agents in it for His own 
ends, there is real power maile over to nature. 
There is no pantheistic identification of nature's 
power with God's. According to Gn 1, the 
earth has the function assigned to it of bringing 
forth grass and herbs, and the trees and all the 
living creatures bring forth fruit 'after their 
kind ' : nature follows its own laws (cf. lie G'). 
Or, again, the sea has a place and power wliich are 
definitely fixed, indeed, but are thereby proved to 
be real (Job 38", Pr S-"). In like maiii'ier there is 
true power, though it is derivative, committed to 
man. He was made ' in the image of God ' (Gn 
l'-""-), and so his originjil endowment inchide.s the 
gift of power like God's. It is proved by his ex- 
ercising dominion over the other living creatures 
(!'■'*), and by his possessing freedom of choice (2"'''). 
The power of man is lost by sin (Gn 2", 1 S 28-"", 
Ro T'**- etc.). Nevertheless, he is treated in every 
condition as a rational and moral being ; the wicked 
are commanded on almost every page of Scripture 
to bestir themselves, to rejient and turn to God. 

2. God continually upholds the world by His 
power in Providence, i.e. (n) in the preservation, 
(b) in the government of the crea'aon. (a) The 
fact of the world's persistence amid change, and 
while everything in it is cliaracterized by transi- 
ency, is referred to the direct action of the Divine 
Will (Gn S^!", Ps 104--"- 139, Jer It--, Ac H''^, He 1" 
etc.). Then (i) God's government of the world 
consists in His guiding all its processes for certain 
predetermined eiuls. Thus He causes grass to 
grow ' for the cattle,' and herb ' for the service of 
man' (Ps 104''"-). Human success is due to the 
favouring presence and power of God, and serves 
for the fulfilment of the Divine purposes, both as 
respects the eartlily life (Jos I""-) and the higher 
life of the soul (Ro 8'*"-, Ph 2"). All the ways of 
men are justly recompensed by the Almighty 
(Jer 32"). Wickedness is overruled and brought 
to naught on the earth, a feature of God's provi- 
dential action which is naturally emphasized in 
OT. God fulfils His purpose of love in spite of 
all ojiposing agents, wluither visible or invisible, 
angelic or Satanic (Ro 8'""-). 

3. Special displays of power made by the 
Almighty. Israel was often saved by God from 
its enemies, the signal deliverance from Egyptian 
bondage which He ell'ected for His people ' oy a 
mighty hand and by an outstretched arm' being 
the type of these supernatural interventions 
(Dt 5'^). The cho.sen people were guided in their 
career, and kept together as a nation, a remnant at 
least being preserved. God revealed His laws and 
ordinances; and these, duly honoured, were cal- 
culated to realize the highest good to the nation, 
to impart the lilessing of ' life ' and all that that 
implies (Dt 28"^- 30'^""-, Ps 19"^-, Pr 3). These 
inlluential manifestations of the Divine Will lead 
up to the comi)leted revelation in Christ, who is 
superior to every world-jiower, and whose gospel is 
' tlie power of God unto salvation to every one that 
believeth' (Ro 1'''). The full manifestation of His 
power occurs when ' the kingdoms of this world are 
tiecome the kingdoms of our Lord, and of hia 
Christ : and he shall reign for ever and ever ' 
(Rev 11"). The personality of Jesus in the 

• Hroiuily slM'.'ikiiii;, Ai/»«uif in NT is powor, and il»\nri» 
authority to wiold it. St'eMjison. Ciiiutitionn of Our Lnrifi. /A" 
on Jiarth, p. OS I. ; Liglilfool uu Col l'^ ; Swclu ou Mk -i^". 




Gospels presents thniufiliout the characteristics 
of spiritual power. He exhibits the unequalled 
power of perfect righteousness anil love, e.g. in 
drawing disciples to Himself with a few words 
(Mt 4™-, Mk 2'^), refuting; learned and influential 
adversaries, so that they could not answer Him a 
word or venture to question Him (AIt22'"', Mk 12*", 
Lk 14" 20"'), driving' out of the temple a crowd of 
those who dishonoured tlie linildinj; (Mt 2V), 
workini; miracles in kindness to men and for the 
furtherance of faith (Mt 11' etc.), e.xtending pity 
and forgiveness to penitent sinners, and thereby 
raising tliem to a new and better life (Lk V'"). 
These qualities of holiness and love in Jesus appear 
at their best when He is under trial ; His endurance 
of the proves them to be stronger than death. 
}lence it is when He is ' lifted up' that He ' will 
draw all men ' unto Him (Jn 12^-). Then tlie 
resurrection of Christ proves His power o\er death 
and His glory as the triumphant Son of God 
(Ac 2, etc.). 

1. Power restored in man. God works in man 
for the restoration of the soul's own power, and 
hence the believer should ' work out his own 
salvation with fear and trembling' (Ph 2'^'). At 
length the full power of the soul is recovered 
through the aid of the Holy Spirit (Ro S'"-, Gal 
S'""-). See Holy Spirit. For the attainment of 
this end in man we have thus (a) the activity on 
God's side, and (i) the activity of man. (a) Tliere 
is a providential leading or drawing by the Father 
before men can come to Christ (Jn 6"). Then 
through the death of Christ believers become dead 
to the power of sin : there is a breach with it in 
principle (Ko 6), or sanctification is begun. ' Not 
that anj'thing in human nature was actually 
changed as by magic in the moment when Christ 
died, but in the completion of this holy life there 
was established a universal and personal principle 
of victory (a Sovafus (ronyipiat), wnich is able wher- 
ever it is received to break sin in the o-dpf and kill 
the natural selhshness, so that the man may walk 
no longer Kara. (rdpKa, but Kard. TrvevfjLa ' (Beyschlag). 
FurtluTinore, through the resurrection of Christ 
men obtain jiower to accept salvation (1 Co 15") : 
faitli not actuated by the risen, living Christ, but 
only by man's own natural endeavours, is ' vain ' 
or powerless. The life of faith throughout its 
progress derives its power from the believer's com- 
munion with the risen and glorified Christ (Ro 5'°, 
2 Co 3'"-, Gal 2-<'). Again, our Lord's resurrection 
imparts the power of a great hope ; Christians have 
a sure hope beyond the present world. And they 
are emiiowered in consequence to be righteous in 
the world and worthy of their high calling, so that 
their hope m.aj' be fulfilled. (4) On man's side 
tliere to be fervent prayer accompanied with 
rigliteousness (Ja 5">), faith which overcomes the 
world (1 Jn !)'), and to whicli nothing is impos.sible 
(Mt 17-'"); and love, which leads to the keeping of 
Christ's words (Jn 14-'), and which casts out fear 
(1 Jn4"). Or man has to walk in the Spirit (a 
process which presupjioses the peace of forgiveness), 
and then he obtains the am|>lest power, shown by 
his not fulfilling the lust of the (lesh (Gal 5'"), and 
by liis liringing forth the varied fruits of the Spirit, 
or growing without cessation into the likeness of 
Christ (Gal 5--'-). By the interaction of these 
Divine and liunian means power is obtained by 
the Christian for the jierformanco of any manifest 
duty, an<l the po.ssession of suMicient power should 
be assumed. Christ is to him tlie Bread of Life, 
strengthening for the accomjilishment of all right- 
eousness (Jn G-'"'-, Ph 4"), as food supplies the 
body with power for all its physical acts ; though 
in nt ither can we comprehend the steps of the 
process (so Dods in ' Expositor's Bible,' John, 
1. 220 n.). 

A possaji^e that has creator! nuu^h discussion is 1 Co ll'o * Foi 
this cause otii;lit the wijitian lo have power {*. ItV *a 
si(jn 0/ authority') on lier heml Itecause of tlie an;^e]s.' The 
apostle's ar^'ument seems to he, llecausc the woman waa 
derived from (v.») and was created for (v.") the man, therefore 
she should ha\e on her head a covering; in tolien that she ia 
under the authority of the man. The ahstract 'authority' ia 
put for the concrete ' si^'n of authority.' Then a new en- 
courajrement is added. If women will not do this out of natural 
seemliness, let them rememher that the angels are present (cf. 
art. Head, vol. ii. p. 317*)in their assemhlies. and for their sakes, 
the mcssen!,'er9 of order, cover their heads. This is the inter- 
pretation of almost all modern expositors. For the presence 
of angels at Divine worship, see especially Meyer, in loc. 

For Powers see under Dominion. 

G. Ferries. 

PO-WER OF THE KEYS. — The ecclesiastical 
connotation of these words must not be altogellier 
identified with the meaning of them in the NT 
passage (Mt 16") from which they are taken, 
although the first is included in the second. And 
the language about the keys in that passage must 
be distinguished again from the language about 
'binding and loosing' which follows. 

The image of the keys is not infrequent in Scrip- 
ture (cf. Is 22-^ Rev l'»). ' The key (nnso, also -tS?) 
to the prophets, as well as to the Rabbis, was the 
symbol of physical and moral authority and power ' 
(Wiinsclie, A ewe Beitrarje, p. 195). The kingdom 
of heaven, here to be understootl of the Messianic 
theocracy about to be established, is likened to a 
house or paljice, of which our Loril that 
St. Peter shall be the chief steward or major-domo, 
who is entrusted with full authority over every- 
thing which the house contains. The keys are not 
merely those of the outer doors of the house, which 
give the holder power to admit or to eject ; the 
porter's ottice is only a part of the authority com- 
mitted to St. Peter. They are the keys ot inner 
chambers also, giving command, for example, of i he 
'treasures' from which it will be his duty (Lk 12-'-) 
to feed the household. As the house is at the same 
time 'the kingdom,' it is evident that the aullio- 
rity is of very wide range. In the passage of Isaiah, 
wliich ofVers the nearest parallel (though it is to 
be observed that the sing, is there used, not the 
plur.), the thought of the kej' suggests an indis- 
putable power of ingress and egress, both for the 
holder and for others at his discretion — a power (.as 
interpreted in Rev 3") of granting or withholding 
opportunities and facilities of various kinds. 

In this last view the ' power of the keys ' leads 
on naturally to the power of ' binding and loosing,' 
which, though not the same as the power of the 
keys, may be regarded as one of the chief exer- 
cises of that power. The ' binding ' and • loosing ' 
is not the binding and loosing of persons but of 
things— not 'whomsoever thou shalt loose,' but 
'whatsoever.' To 'bind' (hidk';'), in rabbinic 
language, is to forbid; to 'loose' (Tn.iS) is to 
permit. Lightfoot says that ' thousands of ex- 
amples ' of this usage might be produced. One 
instance may suttice. ' Concerning the moving of 
empty vessels [on the Sabbath day], of the filling 
of which there is no intention : the scliool of 
Shammai binds it, the school of Hillel looseth it' 
(Hieros. Shabb. fol. 16, 2, quoted by Lightfoot, 
Exercit. upon St. Matt. p. 23S). It is the power 
of laying down the law for his fellow-disciples, 
like a true Rabbi, which is thus bestowed upon St. 
Peter. Or perliaps it is more exact to say that it 
is the power of interpreting in detailed application 
the hiw which GoJ has laid down in general 
terms. Authority is given him to say what the 
law of God allows, and what it forbids; .and the 
iiiomise is added that his ruling shall be upheld in 
heaven, — and is con.sequcntly to be regarded as 
binding upon the consciences of Christians. The 
power of binding and loosing is in fact the power 
of legislation for the Church. 




The gift of ' the keys ' is not expressly bestowed 
on any one else besides St. Peter, but the legis- 
lative power is afterwards extended to others 
(Mt 18"). It is not certain who are the persons 
there addressed. 'The disciples' mentioned in v.' 
are doubtless the apostles, or at any rate include 
some of the apostles ; but it is not easy to prove 
that the power of binding and loosing is there 
bestowed upon them exclusively. That opinion, 
however ancient and however widely held, involves 
the further conclusion that the promises which 
follow, and ni)on which the binding and loosing 
power is made to depend, are to be simUarly 
restricted. It is, accordinjr to this interpretation, 
to the apostles alone that Christ promises that the 
prayer of two of them shall be heard, and that 
where two or three are gathered in His name, He 
will be there. This is dilticult to suppose. We 
must accordingly conclude that the binding and 
loosing power lirst bestowed upon St. Peter is not 
represented in NT as an exclusive privilege of the 
apostles. It is the common privilege of the Christian 
society — even of a small brancli of it — when acting 
in agreement (v.'") and solemnly assembled in (or 
' to ') Christ's name as its ground of union ( v.*>). In 
this case, however, the power appears to be connected 
with judicial discipline over individual members of 
the society. The ' binding and loosing ' are not, in 
this case any more than elsewhere, to be inter- 
preted as the absolving and retaining of sins ; they 
seem to mean the prescribing what the ofl'ender is 
to do and not to do. But, in case of his refusal to 
comply with these requirements of ' the Church,' 
he IS to be treated as 'a heathen man and a 
publican,' i.e. as excommunicate ; and the resist- 
ance to the authority of the Church is to be 
considered as resistance to the will of Heaven. 
The prayer of the slighted Church will be heard, 
for Christ Himself is present at the gathering, 
And Heaven will give its sanction to the sen- 
tence (see interestmg parallels in Wiinsche, p. 

There is, accordingly, a close connexion between 
the authority to bind and loose and the authority 
to absolve and retain sins (Jn '20^). The discipline 
which prescribes what the sinner must do, on pain 
of encountering a sentence at once earthly and 
heavenlj', cannot but involve a ' |)ower of the keys' 
in the (inaccurate) sense which that term has 
borne in the Church since patristic times. 

Christians of all ages have riglitly seen a signal 
instance of St. I'eler's use of the keys in the 
admi.ssion of Cornelius to the Church. He thus 
• opened ' the door indeed to the Gentiles, ' and no 
man ' has ever since ' shut ' it to them. Hut there 
is no reason to think that this one act was all that 
was in our Lord's mind when He made the promise ; 
nor is it likely that He referred only to the 
aulliiiritj' to baptize at discretion exercised by the 
apostle. The whole of his chief-stewardship was 
included in the promise ; and both in his appoint- 
ments of other Christians to sacred olhces, in the 
atlminist ration of the Christian sacraments at large, 
and in his exi)ositions of Christian truth, he was 
exercising the power of the keys. 

An eijually signal instance of 'binding and 
loosing ' on a large scale is the regulation laid 
down by St. Peter, along with ' the apostles and 
the elders,' for tne discipline of the Gentile 
Christians in regard to meats and manner of life 
(Ac I.V-'"). They 'loosed' for them all other kinds 
of food ; thay 'bound ' for them ' things ollcred to 
idols, and blooil and things strangled, and fornica- 
tion.' Similarly, at a later time, St. Paul at 
Corinlh 'loosed 'even the eating of things ollered 
to idols, — though he ' bound ' it in certain circum- 
stances (1 Co lO^'-), — and laid down various rules 
concerning marriago (1 Co 7), and concerning 

public worship (1 Co 11-14). 'So ordain I in all 
Churches ' is his formula ( 1 Co 7"). 

Of 'binding and loosing' in relation to the in- 
di\'idual, the case which we are able to follow with 
the greatest degree of clearness is that of the 
incestuous man at Corinth ; which recalls with 
remarkable exactness the language of Mt IS'*'-. 
St. Paul was evidently surprised that the Church 
of Corinth had not dealt with the on its own 
responsibility. It ought to have ' mourned,' with 
a view to the removal of the ofl'ender (1 Co 5-). 
The ' mourning ' he would have expected wat 
clearly a public and united humiliation of the 
Church before God, to the intent that God might 
' take away ' the man who had done the deed (sea 
Godet, ad loc). In answer to the solemn and 
concerted prayer, a stroke from heaven would liave 
fallen upon him, as upon Ananias and Sapphira, 
or, without such prayer, upon the jirofaners of the 
Eucharist at Corinth itself (1 Co 11""). Probably 
this appeal to God would have been jireceded or 
accompanied by an act of formal separation from 
the sacramental fellowship of the Church ; cer- 
tainly by an exclusion of the sinner from social 
intercourse with the brethren (ICo .5"). As tlie 
Corinthian Church had not thus acted, the apostle 
informs them of his own intended procedure, with 
which he demands that they sliould cooperate. 
Though absent from them in body, he calls upon 
them to assemble; he himself will .spiritually be 
present in the assembly, armed with 'the power 
(not merely with the authority) of our Lord .lesus.' 
The sentence which he has already passed ujjon 
the man 'in the name of the Lord Jesus' will 
then be formally pronounced. He will he 'de- 
livered unto Satan for the destruction of the 
flesh, that the .spirit may be saved in the day of 
the Lord.' Delivery to Satan was not a rab- 
binical formula for excommunication in any form 
(Lightf. Excrcitations, adluc. ). The iihrase is prob- 
ably derived from Job 1'- 2". St. Paul seems to 
have intended that either by a judicial death, or 
by .some wasting disease, the man sliould be so 
punished as to bring him to repentance (cf. 1 Ti 
1-"). The disci|iline seems to have hail the desired 
etlect. The majority of the Corinthian Church 
(2 Co 2°) administered a 'rebuke' to the man, — 
which was jirobably excommunication in its less 
severe form (' reproof with the Habylonian writers 
was the same with excommunication,' Lightf. p. 
183). The man was overwhelmed with .sorrow, — so 
much so that the apostle feared lest the excess of it 
should be fatal to his soul (2 Co 2'). He bids the 
Corinthians therefore ' forgive and comfort him.' 
He himself, acting as Christ's representative {iv 
irpocruni-!)) XpiffToC) has already forgiven him, though 
he will not consider his forgiveness as absolute (ei' n 
Kix^pi-of-"-^) until the Corinthian Church has joined 
in it. The solemn gathering ' in the name of the 
Lord,' the conlidence that His 'power 'would be 
present to ratify what was done by His representa- 
tives upon earth, the punishment and the release, 
all appear to be directly based upon the language 
of our Lord recorded by Mt. 

Of the exercise of discipline in less unusual cases 
we naturally have scantier evidence in NT. Per- 
haps the most interesting reference to it is thai in 
Ja 5'^''. The sick man is there advised to call lor 
the presbj'ters of the Church, who are to pray 
over him, 'anointing him with oil in the name.' 
In answer to this action of the Church repre- 
sented by its local heads, the writer says that the 
sick man will recover (for to interjiret awnfi and 
^f()ti otherwise seems impossible in the context), and 
adils that 'if he have committed sins,' i.e. obviously, 
grave and marked sins, 'he shall be forgiven ' (ndf 
a/ia/xrfas ^ TfTrotT/Kuis, dfp(0^a€T(u airri^). That tht 
d0c(?i}irrrat airrif is a promise of what God will do ix 




answer to tlie prayer of the presbyters, and not an 
instruction to tlie jiiosbyters themselves, seems to 
be leiniired l)y tlie structure of the sentences. It is 
parallel in sense to croxrei and iyepeT. If St. James 
had intended the word to mean that the presbyters 
were to absolve the man, he would probably have 
put it in the imperative, like irpoaKoKeaiadu and 
Tpoaev^iaduiraii. But the forgiveness of God is a 
blessing granted to the faithful prayers of the pres- 
byters ; and, in order to encourage such prayers, 
the apostle proceeds to insist upon the value of 
tliem. ' Confess therefore your sins one to another, 
and pray one for another, he says, ' that ye may 
be healed.' By ' one to another ' he means ' to 
your fellow-men,' i.e. not to God only. It is clear 
that he cannot mean mutual confession in the 
ordinary of the term, for (!) he assumes that 
the prayers to which he ascribes such efficacy are 
those 01 ' righteous men,' not those of men who 
' have committed sins ' ; (2) the special object with 
which the prayers are to be offered (not indeed the 
contentsof the prayers, which are directly connected 
■with forgiveness) is ' that ye may be healed ' (Sttws 
IdO-QTe) ; if, therefore, the prayers are to be in the 
strict, sense mutual prayers, it is implied that both 
parties, praying and prayed for, are alike sick, and 
the mutual confession would be only between sick 
man and sick man, which is absurd. Evidently, 
the sick man is exhorted to make his confession to 
the presbyters whom he has called in, and they in 
turn are exhorted to pray for his forgiveness, upon 
which his recovery is made to depend, and are re- 
minded what power their prayers have, if only they 
are what they ought to be. The apostle selects 
from the OT history the example of one who exer- 
cised the ' power of the keys ' upon a national scale, 
bum shutting ' and ' opening' the stores of heaven 
for his people. Though but ' a man of like passion* 
with us,' Llijah by his (unrecorded) prayers shut 
up the rain from his guilty countrymen for three 
years and a half ; and on their showing signs of 
repentance, he opened it again for them. We 
need not therefore w^onder (such is St. James' argu- 
ment) if, when we confess our sins to beings of 
the same make as ourselves, their intercession is 
able to obtain for us the remission of them. (On 
the rabbinic view of Elijah and the ' Keys,' see 
Wiinsche, p. 195). 

Our accounts of life within the Christian com- 
munities of the first age are so fragmentary that 
we cannot be surprised at not finding many refer- 
ences to the penitential discipline which existed 
among them. That there should have been some 
power on earth answering to what was occasionally 
exhibited even in OT times — as in the absolution 
of David by Nathan (2 S 12'^) — is only what was to 
be expected in the covenant of grace. When Chr'st 
claimed to for;.'ive sins as ' the Son of,' tlie 
multitudes ' glorified God which had given such 
authority unto men' (Mt 9"). The last word may 
mean either that the autliority to absolve was 
committed by God to men, to use on His behalf ; 
or that by delegation of such an authority God 
had besiowed a olessing upon men : in other words, 
the ' men ' spoken of may be either the holders of tlie 
authority, or those on whose behalf it was given. 
'Jut in either it was recognized that the assur- 
ance of forgiveness had been made accessible in anew 
way ; and Christ, in His first appearance to the 
assembled Church after His resurrection, gave His 
disciples to understand that the authority which 
He had exercised in relation to absolving and re- 
taining of sins was henceforth vested in them, as 
the continuators of His own mission (Jn 20-"-). It 
is not an exhaustive interpretation of these words 
which would see in them only a commission to 
iuiposu or to remove ecclesiastical censures. All 
acta of the Christian society, according to the 

NT conception of it, are fraught with spiritual 

It may be added that some eminent interpretera 
consider the ' laying on of hands ' in 1 Ti 5-- to 
be the sign of absolution (see art. LAYING ON 
OF Hands); but the interpretation is far from 
certain. A. J. MASON. 


PR/ETORIDM (Or. ri irpaiTiipioi>). —Th\s Lat. 
word, adopted in the later Gr., signified originally 
the general's {prwtor's) tent (e.g. Livy, Hist. vii. 12, 
X. 33). Then it was applied to the council, com- 
posed of the chief officers of the army, which 
assembled in the general's tent {e.g. Livy, Jlist. 
xxvi. 15, XXX. 5, xxxvii. 5) ; then to the official 
residence of the governor of a province (e.g. Cic. 
in Verr. II. iv. 28, II. v. 35 ; Tert. ad Heap. 3) 
then, in the post-Augustan age, to any princely 
house (e.g. Juv. Sat. x. 161), and even to a large 
\Tlla or country-seat (e.g. Suet. Octav. 72, Calig. 
37, Tib. 39 ; Juv. Sat. i. 75 ; Statius, Sylv. I. iii. 
25) ; and finally to the imperial bodyguard, whose 
commander was prmfectiis prmtorto cr prcetorii 
(e.g. Tac. Hist. i. 20, ii. 11, 24, iv. 46; Suet. 
Nero, 9 ; Pliny, NH xxv. 2). No certain example 
occurs of its application either to the praetorian 
camp or barracks or to the emperor's residence in 
Rome, though it was often used of the emperor's 
residence away from Rome. 

In AV the word appears only once (Mk 15") ; 
but in the Gr. of NT it is used in Mt 27=" (AV 
' the common hall ' ; marg. ' governor's house ' , 
RV 'the palace'), Mk 15" (AV 'the hall, called 
Pr£etorium'; RV 'within the court which is 
Prajtorium ' ; marg. 'palace'), Jn 18^ (AV 'the 
hall of judgment ' ; marg. ' Pilate's house ' ; RV 
' palace '^l, island 19» (AV 'judgment hall'; RV 
'palace'), Ac 23^ (AV 'Herod's judgment hall'; 
RV 'Herod's palace'), Ph 1" (AV 'in all the 
palace ' ; marg. ' Caesar's court ' ; RV ' throughout 
the whole prsetorian guard'). 

In the Gospels the term denotes the official 
residence in Jems, of the Roman governor, and 
the various tr" of it in our versions arose from a 
desire either to indicate the special purpose for 
which that residence was used on the occasion in 
question, or to explain what particular building 
was intended. But whatever building the governor 
occupied was the Pra'torium. It is most probalile 
that in Jerus. he resided in the well-known palace 
of Herod, since Philo (ad Gaium, 31) states that 
Pilate hung there the shields which ottended the 
Jews (see Pilate), and Josephus (BJ li. xiv. 8, ll. 
XV. 5) speaks of Gessius Florus as living in ' the 
king's palace,' and since in Cfesarea (see Ac xxiii. 
35) Herod's palace is known to have been used for 
the same purpose. Herod's palace in Jerus. was a 
magnificent structure in the upper or western part 
of the city, and was connected hy a causeway over 
the valley of Tyropa>on with the western wall of 
the temple. It is described by Josephus (BJ V. 
iv. 4, Ant. XV. ix. 3) in admiring terms. It was 
surrounded by a wall, rising to the hei"ht of 30 
cubits, and adorned with towers at equal distances. 
The enclosure was large enough to contain a small 
army. The building had two marble wings, called 
by Herod the Ca'sareum and the Agrippeum. It 
contained large rooms within and spacious porticoes 
without. It was sumptuously furnished, and was 
surrounded by a beautiful park. Here the governor 
with his guards lived when in Jerus., wiiile the 
regular garrison occupied the castle of Antonia; 
and it was doubtless before this building that tlia 
Jews presented themselves with the demand foi 
Jesus' execution. Tradition, indeed, has placed the 
residence of Pilate in the lower city, a short 




distance north of the temple. Not a few also have 
identilioil it with the castle of Antonia (Hosen- 
miiller, A/lcrl/ti(i>i-/:uni/e, II. ii. 228; Cits|iari, 
Intiijtl. i>. 225; Wieseler, Clirun. Si/n., Knj;. tr. 
J). 372;, Life of Christ , iii. 340 n.; Westcott, 
St. John) — partly hecause tradition has located the 
house of Pilate near the site of the ca.stle ; partly 
l«;iause, since the castle \va.s the regular barracks 
for the jiarrison, and was sulliciently large for the 
purpose, it is thought prohatile that the governor 
nl-^o iLscd it ; and also because nianj' identifj' 'the 
[ilace called the Pavement, but, in the Hebrew, 
(.Jahbatha,' with the elevated, paved area between 
the castle and the temple (see G.MiliATHA). But, 
for the rea.sons given above, the ideiititication with 
H>-rod's palace is probably to be preferred (so Mej'er, 
M iiier, Alford, Schiirer, Kdersheim, and others). 
In like manner, as alreiuiy observed, Herod's 
palace in Ca-sarea was used as the Pra-torium 
there. The expression in Ac 23" (' Herod's Prae- 
torium ') is abbreviated from ' the pra'torium of 
Herod's palace,' and thus describes both the par- 
ticular building and the purpose for which it was 

In Ph 1" ' in the whole Pia-torinm ' has been very 
variously explained. Many commentators, ancient 
and modern, have tr^ it 'palace' (so AV), coupling 
it with 4^, where allusion is made to believers who 
belonged to 'CV'sar's household.' But no other 
instance a|>pears of the application of the term to 
the emperor's residence in Kome. Such an appli- 
cation would have been intolerable to the Romans, 
since it would have shocked the republican tradi- 
tions under which the empire was organized. 
Hence man}', as Perizonius (l)e orig. sifjnif. ct usit 
voce, prmtorii et praitorii, 1687, Disquintio de 
prtetorio, 1G90), Clericus, Michaelis, Hoeleraan, 
NViesinger, Milman, Weiss, Ellicott, Mejcr, under- 
stand it of the barracks of the praetorian guard 
(rristra prieiurianorum). But Lightfout {Cum. on 
Phil. p. 99) has shown that neither can this use of 
the word be established. Wieseler {Chron. d. 
Apost. Zeit. p. 403), followed by Couyheare and 
Howson, refers it, not to the praetorian camp, 
but to the barracks of the palace {piard, which 
Augustus establishe<l (Dio liii. 16) in the 
iiupeiial eiK lo^ure on the Palatine hill ; but, after 
the est.'iblishment of the ca.itni pncloridnorum by 
Tiberius, the word would nutur.illy refer to it, if 
to anj' barracks. The following phrase (tois Xoiirots 
Traatv) more naturally describes ner.sons than 
places, Xoiriis being never in NT a]iplied to places 
(Ellicott, in lijc). Presumably, therefore, ' pra;- 
torium,' too, is de.scriptive of persons. Hence 
Lightfoot lia-s ably defended the meaning 'pr>T- 
torian guard.' St. Paul is suppo.sed to have been 
chained to soldiers of the guard, and thus, through 
the change of guards, his ine.ssage spread througli- 
out the whole bodj' of soldiers. This meaning of 
Pra-torium is frequent, and ha.s been adopted in Ph 
1" in KV. Recently, however, Mcmimsen (Sitz- 
unrjsb. der Knniq. prfius.f. Aaid. d. Wiati-narh. 1895, 
p. 49.'), etc.), followed by Ramsay (St. Paul the Trav. 
p. 357), has proposed another view. He considers 
It improbable that St. Paul was put in charge of 
the pr.ctorian guard. He believes that Julius, the 
centurion who brought Paul to Kome, belonged 
to the corps of niililis fruiiienlarii or pcrcgritti, a 
corps drafted from legions in the provinces, whose 
iluly it was to supervise the corn supply, and also 
(iroliablj' to Perform [lolice .service : and that Julius 
probably delivered his pri-soners to the commander 
ot his corps, princeps pcrcqrinonim, whose camp 
perhaps alremly, a.s it was afterwards, on the 
Ca;lian hill. But while St. Paul was not in charge 
of the prretorian guard, his ciuse came before 
the pnetorian couiuil, consisting of the praferti 
prtetorio and their as.sistants. This council then, 
VOL. IV. — 3 

according to Mommsen and Ramsay, is the prte- 
torium alluded to by the apostle, and tois Xoiiroh 
taaiv refers to the audience at the trial.* 

PRAISE IN OT.—' Praise,' whether as a verb or 
a noun, has various applications in the OT, but its 
commonest use is to denote an act of homage or 
worshiii oHered to God by His creatures, par- 
ticularly by man. The object of this article wU) 
be mainly to examine the meaning and usage of 
the terms which our English versions render by 
'praise,' and to sketch, as far as the data enable 
us to do so, the occasions, the modes, and the 
history of praise in Israel. 

i. T'hk rKi'.M.s.— 1. '7%!. The original sense of 
this root is perhajis ' break out (in a cry),' especially 
of joy (cf. the name Hnlhl aii])lied to Ps 113-118, 
the Aram. t(|?!V.-i ' maniage-song,' and the Assj-r. 
al(tlu ' shout for joy ' ; see also Cheyne, OP 460), 
although it is possible that, as W. It. Smith (A'6'' 
411) suggests, among the Semites 'the shouting 
(halld) that accompanied sacrifice may, in its 
oldest shape, have been a wail over the death of 
the victim, though it ultimately took tlie form of 
a chant of praise [Hallelujah).' The idea of making 
a noise is what appears to be prominent. The same 
writer points out that the roots h'7T\ • to chant 
praises' and '?'?" 'to howl' are closely connected, 
and he thinks it possible that shouting in mourning 
and shouting in joj- may have both been primarily 
directed to the driving away of evil influences. 
The sense of 'praise' is conveyed by the above 
root in the Piel SV.-. This may have tor its object 
( 1 ) man or woman : On 12" (J ) ' they praised (LXX 
^TTJj'firai'.AV 'commended') her (Sarah) to Pharaoh'; 
Pr 27* ' let another man praise thee (LXX iyKwfua- 
t^&ru <re), and not thine own mouth' ; 28'' ' they that 
forsake the law praise (LXX iyKUfiid^ovcny) the 
wicked '; 31^-" the virtuous woman is praised by 
her husband and by her works (LXX in both aivuy, 
but in V." a dillcrent reading from that of MT is 
followed : <tai aiviaOuj iv vuXais i dfr/p avTljs, ' and let 
her husb.and be praised in the gates') ; Ca 6" (here 
and in the following passages, unless otherwise 
noted, LXX aimi-) of the Shulammite ; 2 S 14'^ 
of Absalom's beauty {atverds) ; 2 Ch 23'* of king 
Joash. (2) The object is once a false god : Jg 16-^ 
of the Philistines praising {v/meli') Dagon ; (3) very 
frequently God (□•-S.-f or .ti.t) : Ps 69** (where 
'heaven and earth, the seas, and everj'thing that 
moveth therein 'are called on to praise Him; cf. 
Ps 148) ; often of public worship in the sanctuary : 
Is 62", cf. 64" {ciXoyely), Ps 22^ (i>jni.f?;/, of. v.» 
A fraiyds fiov) 35" 84* 1U7^» 109™ 146= 149". Some- 
times the object is ' the name of Jahweh or of 
God' (ni.T cs* or n'r^x Dj^, tA dvofui. rov dfoD) : Ps 69** 
74" 145- 148», Jl 2--« ; or His word ("iji, Xiyos, M^a) : 
Ps 56' UraiKif) ""^ [v."»> may be an editorial 
addition, so Hupfeld, Cheyne et al.] ; or the object 
may be unexpressed : Jer 31 [Gr. 38]', Ps 03' [iirai- 
velv). The expression ' praise ye Jali ' (Hallelujah, 
in Ps 135' n,-iSi;n [atfure tAx Kiipiof], elsewhere 
always as one word n;iV":n, 'AW-qXomi [cmce Ps 104" 
S;'''i?T'. LXX omits here]) has generally a liturgical 
application and is mostly conhned to late psalms. 
It occurs at the beginning of Ps 106. 111. 112. 113. 
135. 146. 147. 148. 149, and at the end of 104. 105. 
• Momniseii denies that rrpecrtriixfix^if (AV captain of the 
guard), found Ac2Sl«in some aiithoritios (cf. BIosh, a(/ /«;.), but 
omitted by WH, Tisch., and KV, could have beeu applied to a 
prttjfcttu pT<rtorio. Tliia reaiiintr is evidently * Western,' and 
Mouunsen muls in the text of the Stockholm I^atin MS (* Gigus '), 
princfvs perei/rinorum, at least a 2nd cent, interpretation of it, 
one wnich conflrms his inference that the caj<tra pertgrinarum 
had Ijeen established In Rome in St. Paul's time. Positive 
evidence, however, for the existence of this corps and camp, 
under this name, appears only in the time of Sevenis, and the 
Latin MS may intetTiret the Or. text before It by the light 
of later custom ; while rrfiartwtH^r^ Itself was evidently a 
popular title, and really supplies oo ijQformatiun as to who took 
charge of the apostle. 


I'KAisE o or 


lOG. 113. 115. 116. 117. 135. 14G. 147. 148. 149. 150. 
See, furtlier, art. Iiisliad of the 
direct object, 'jV.t is j;oiierally followed, in the 
writinj,'s of the Chronicler, by nirr?, in tlie account 
of the technical Levitical (or priestly) function of 
praising Jahweh ; 1 Ch 16^ 23^*' 25^ 2 Ch 5'» 20i'' 
29="' (iiiiveiv) 30'-" (KaOuixifuv), Ezr 3" ; but the simple 
.ii.T occurs in Ezr 3'", as it does also in Neli 5" 
(Nelieniiah's own Memoirs). The object is un- 
expressed in Nell 12-' (Chronicler), cf. 1 Ch 23'', 
2 Ch 7" ('when David praised by their ministry,' 
LXX iv [ifxi'Oii AaviiS 5td x^V"' avTaf) S" 23'^ (' the 
singers also played on instruments of music and 
led the singing of praise ' D-yiiDi i-^'n 'h:2 D'-i-;i;>'5r;i 
V^C^» LXX ot 5i5oi'Tes €V rots opydvots, yooi Kal u/xvoOvtcs 
alpof) 31", in all of which V^n has its technical 
sense. — Similarly, the passive sense 'be praised' is 
conveyed by the I'ual, and once (Pr 31™) by the 
Hitlipael : (1) of human subjects and things: I'r 12* 
'a man shall be praised (AV; EV ' commended,' 
LXX iyKu/imi((jOai) according to his wisdom ' ; Ps 
78'^ ' their maiilcns were not praised ' (in marriage- 
song ; see Clieyue ad loc), so Aquila ovx vixvi^Briiniv, 
Symm. and Theod. ovk (jrrjy4$Tiaav, but LXX oCk 
iiTiii6rjaav, 'did not raise the dirge'; Ezk 26" of 
Tyre the ' praised (AV ; RV 'renowned') city' (LXX 
rt 7r6,Vs ri iTraiveTri) ; (2) of God, only in ptcp. ('?^7P) 
with gerundive force = ' to be praised,' 'worthy of 
praise ' : 2 S 22' {alv^rbv iirt.Ka\i(jOfxat Ki'ptoc) = Ps 
18' (alvCiv ^TTiKaXiaofiai Kvpioi'}, Ps 4S' 'Ji)"* ( = 1 Ch 
16-^) 145' [in these last four the LXX has oiVfTiis] ; 
in Ps 113' the subject is His name (aiVeirai t& &fofia 

The noun for ' praise ' from the root 77n is njrip 
(once "j^c?, Pr 2"-' ' the fining pot is for silver and 
the furnace for gold, and a man [is to be estimated] 
according to his praise,' where ■•'?N"5 '2^ probably 
means 'according to his reputation' [so Toy et al., 
cf. LXX avy]p Bi oo^'fjudj'erai otd aTofjiCLTOS eyKw^ia^dvrwf 
airrov ; see Oxf. Hcb. Lex. for other possible ex- 
planations]). The word .i^-^p is used (1) of /M'rtfse 
offered to J", sometimes individual, but more fre- 
quently general and public : Ps 34' 48'" (both 
oiVeffis) 65^ ('unto Thee stillness is praise [tdt 'h 
n^nri], O God, in Zion,' but text and tr. are both 
doubtful ; LXX 2oi irpiirei vfipoi, ' praise is a fitting 
tribute to thee' ; see Comm. ad loc, and Driver, 
Par. Psalter), 71° (ifirqan), ' (aiVems), lOO' (vfifoi.) ; 
particularly of praise as sung : Ps 22' ('O Thou 
that sittest [throned] upon the praises of Israel,' 
an imitation of D'5-.n;n 2fv, the idea perhajis being 
that the praises, ascending like clouds of incense, 
form, as it were, the throne upon which J" sits [so 
Kirkpatrick et al., but see Duhm ad loc, and cf. 
the LXX <r(> 5^ ^v ayioLi KaroiKeU, 6 ^^ratfos 'ItrpaTjX]), 
33' (aiVffis), 40' (O/xpos), 106'= Neh 12-"' (both aiceo-is), 
Is 42'° (5o|dffTe t6 ofofia aiiToO). (2) The word n^nn 
is used for a song of praise in the title of Ps i45 
(atVcffis) ; cf. the New lleb. name for the Book of 
Psalms, niVriB ije or D'i>nn 'o, or ['^-b. (3) It is used 
of qualities, deeds, etc., of X' which demand praise : 
Ex 15" niVnn tt-ni ' terrible in praises' (i.e. in attri- 
butes that call for praise; LXX Oav/iaaris iv oujais), 
cf. Ps 9" (' that I may show forth all Thy praise '), 
78* (' telling the praises of the Lord '), 79'"' (' we will 
show forth Thy praise'), 102-' ('that men may de- 
clare His praise in Jerusalem'), 106- ('who can show 
forth all His praise?'), v."= 1 Ch 16" ('to triumph in 
Thy jnaise') [in the last six passages LXX oii/effis]. 
Is 43-' ('this people shall show forth My praise,' 
LX.X ipa-al), 60' (' they shall proclaim the praises 
of the Lord,' LXX t6 <ruTi)ptov Kvpiov eOayy€\ioOvTai), 
63' ('I will make mention of the praises of the 
Lord,' LXX apirai). (4) .T~.-i^ may = renoton. fame, 
glory, or the object of these: (a) of J": liab,3' 
' the earth was full of His praise ' (mS'iri i'-iN.T ^k''!:, 
LXX aivia-eui avToO irX-fip-qs ri yij) 1| ' His glorj' covered 
the heavens' (Wn c^^v .i j, LXX iKd\v\pep ovpavoiis i) 

dpfTT) oi/ToC), cf. Dt 10-' ' He is thy praise,' Jer 17" 
' Thou art my praise' (both Kavxv/M) ; (6) of other 
objects: Israel or Jerusalem, Dt 26''-' (koi/xi/mi). Is 
62' (OA ayavpia/ia, Theod. Kauxrma), cf. 60'" (' thou 
shalt call thy walls Salvation and thy gates Praise,' 
i.e. probably ' thy fame or renown shall take the 
place of protecting walls' ; LXX /tXi)fl>iireTai -urr/pior 
rd reixv "O", ''O' "' TiiXai aov r\vfi./ia), and 61" (d7a\-; Moab, Jer48[Gr. 31]^(d7oi'pia;aa); Damascus, 
49" [Gr. SO"], LXX follows a dillercut reading, 
Babylon, 51 [Gr. 28] " (raiJxw")- Is 61' ' tlie gar- 
ment of praise' (■i^7in •%:;',?) is doubtful. It may = 
'praise (renown) as a garment ' (Del it zsch) or ' a 
splendid garment' (Dillmann), but perhaps the 
clauses should, with Bickell, Cliej'ne, Oort, Duhm, 
be arranged thus : nrn .^^^n '?ax .tj;j^3 n-g p^y ]--^r 
nri3 nn ' oU of joy for the garment of mournin", a 
song of praise for a failing spirit.' The LXX lias 
So^av dvTL airooou, &\ifjLjj.a eu^poai'VTjs Toii Trevdouaif 
KaTacTTo\T]v do^rj? dvTi wpeufiaTos dKtjoiai. 

In Lv 19-' the fruit of trees ofTered in the 
fourth }-ear of their bearing is ni.T'? c'^i>'.7 dy (lit. 
' holiness of praise to J",' LXX 07105 oiVerds rifj 
Kvpiu), cf. Jg 9-'' [the only other occurrence of 
the Heb. word], where the Shechemites hold a 
vintage rejoicing or merry-making (c^iV.i ir;::, 
LXX B 4Tro'n)(jav cWovXeifi, A ^, x^P°'^^) ^ ^^'^ 
house of Baal-berith. 

2. The root m' whose primary sense is ' throw or 
cast.' The only occurrence of the Qal is in Jer 50 
[Gr. 27] " ' shoot at her ' (Babylon ; n'^x n;, LXX 
Tofeuiraj-e iir' avTr/f), but perhaps we should read 
here n;. This sense is borne also by the Piel in 
the only two passages where this stem occurs, 
namely. La 3" ('? I^xii:! ' and they cast stone(s) 
at me,' LXX Kal iiviBriKav Xidop iv' i/iot) and Zee 2' 
[Eng. P'] (n:ijn nij-iirnx n'n;^, LXX, by confusion 
with the Heb. word for ' hands,' reads e/s x^'P"-^ 
avTuip rd Tiffuapa. Kipara). All the other occurrences 
of the root show the Hiphil and Hitlipael (the 
latter only in P, the Chronicler, and Daniel) 
stems, which have the sense of ' praise ' or ' con- 
fess,' a sense which it is somewhat dithcult to 
connect with the jirimary signiiication, although 
it has been suggested that the connecting link 
may be found in gestures accompanying the act of 

The Hiph. ni'in (cf. Palmyrene niio ' render 
thanks,' frequent in votive inscriptions) is used 
occasionally of praising men : Gn 49* of Judah 
[with play upon name, ' Judnh, thee shall thy 
brethren praise ' (jodiikha), LXX alve7v'\ ; Ps 45" 
of the king (AV 'praise,' RV 'give thanks'); 49'« 
'men praise thee when thou doest well to thyself 
(both i^op.o\oyt'ia9ai.) ; Job 40" of Job, spoken 
ironicallj- by tlie Almiglity (LXX b)io\oyeiv, AV and 
RV 'confess'). This sense of 'confess' is borne by 
the Heb. word also in IK 8''-" = 2Ch 6" (all 
i^opLoXoyuv), ^ (aivdv), Ps 325 [iiayopeviiv), Pr 28" 
(e^rjyeiirBai.) ; cf. [in Hithp.] Ezr 10' (irpoaayopdtiv), 
Neh 1« 9--» (all ^{o7op€t;ei>'), Dn 9* (LXX. and Theod. 
iioij.o\oyeta9ai) '" (LXX i^onoXoyeiffSai, Theod. eiayop- 
eiiiv), Lv 5» 16=' 26", Nu 5' (all iia.yop(vay).—Much 
more frequently the object of praise is God : Gn 
29='' where J explains the name Judah (which he 
takes as=' praised,' as if from Hoph. of nr) by the 
saying he puts in the mouth of Leah, ' this time 
will I praise (Heb. '6dch) the LORD' (;fo^oXo7T;iro|iai 
Ku/jiifj) ; very frequently, especially in Ps and Ch, 
of praise ofl'ered in the ritual worship, the object 
being Jaliweh explicitly or implicitly : e.g. Is 12' 
(eiXoyf'if), * (vjivuf), 38'"'(o;i'er>', (vXtrfelv), Jer 33 [Gr. 
40] ", Ps 7" 9' 30'- " 32»- " (all i^o^dKoyeiaeai). Ps 
76'° ' surely the wrath of man shall praise Thee, 
the residue of wrath shalt Thou giro upon Thee ' 
(AV and RVm ' restrain ') is doubtful. The MT 
reads -linri n::n n-ixf T\-nn din njq '?, LXX 5ri ivBiiiuon 
duOpwTTOv i^OfioXoyriaeTal <roi, Kal iyKariXifi/UL Mv/dou 




ioprdffft cot. Duhm emends niq to nbx, and '? to 
Vd, and in the next clause follows the LXX in 
reading ^^ in:;, thus obtaining; the sense, 'all the 
tribes of men shall praise Thee, the residue of 
the tribes shall keep (pilj,'riniage) festival to Thee.' 
Wellhausen makes the same change, n^ :nn, in 
the last clause ; on non he remarks tliat by this 
■word the pious are meant, but that the pronun- 
ciation and the moaning of the word are quite 
uncertain. Ps 139" reads ' I will praise (RV 'give 
tlianks unto') Thee, for I am fearfully and wonder- 
fully made' (lit. 'fearfullj' wondrous,' there being 
no ' made ' in the Hebrew [Driver, Par. PsaHcr]). 
The LXX (BA i^o^oKoy^aofiaL joi &n tpo^spuis e^ai'/;ca- 
<rr<iSij5, but N* (8avfia<mi6rii'), the Syr. and the 
Vulg. {quia terrihiliter magnificatiis es) have 'Thou, 
arc fearfully wondrous,' and this is adopted by 
AVellh. in &BOT, i.e. r^i:} for 'n-^pj. The more 
radical emendations proposed by Duhm appear to 
be uncalled for. — In other instances the object is 
the name of God : Is 25' (vinfelf), Ps 44^ 54" 99^ 138^ 
142' ; or His wonders («fe, ri Sau^aio) Ps 89'' (aU 
iioiJLoXoyciaBai). Instead of a simjjle accusative, mn 
may be followed by ), always referring to the 
ritual worship, e.g. cs*^ Ps lOli" 'to give thanks 
unto Thy holy name,' cf. 122* 140'^ (all fto/io- 
\oyilaOai) ; ^c^ij^ in? (t^ M**'}/^?? '"^s ayiunrvPT}^ avrod) 
Ps 30* 97" ( AV ' at the remembrance of His holi- 
ness,' RV 'to His holy name,' both e^o/Jio\oy(Ta$ai) ; 
.•n.TS 1 Ch IS*-'" (all a/«r..), iS" {e^oiioXoyeiffOai), 25' 
(where miT and h'jn occur together, LXX ivaKpovd- 
fienos eiofio\6yi)<riy icoi aiVecrii'), 2 Ch 5" (similarly 
e^OfioXoycTaOai /cai ati^eTi') 7" 20-' 30" (Hithp.), Ps 33- 
92' (all f'ioMoXo7er(rOai) 105'= 1 Ch 168= j^ j-m (i^^^^i'); 
cf. the familiar ' Give thanks to J" for He is good ' 
(2^B-'3 .iin*'? nin, (^ofioXoyeiaOf rw Kvpiip^ clrt xpv<^'^^^ or 
dyoL$if) Ps lOG' 107' US'-" i3U', 1 Ch 16" (here, 
pi-rliaps by a scribal error, dyaOin), cf. Jer 33 [Gr. 
40] ". 

It will be observed that very frequently both 
AV and IIV render .iiin by ' give thanks to ' in- 
stead of 'praise,' and in many instances (2Ch 7''' 
20=', Ps 7" 9' 3.3- 448 4517 50»54« 57a log' 109*> 111' 
11819.21 iigt ,38,.. jggu ,4.27 i45io_ Is 121. 4, Jer 

33"), although not uniformly, RV substitutes 'give 
tlianks to' for AV 'praise.' It might be well to 
adopt this rendering in all instances where mi.i 
describes a religious exercise, except those in which 
'confess' is the appropriate sense, and to retain 
'praise' for SV.-r. 

The noun from this root is .Ti^n ' praise,' ' thanks- 
giving.' It is used of giving to J" by con- 
fession of sin : Jos 7" .IE ; niin i'?'!?, 5As ttiv i^o/io- 
Xiyijo-ii', cf. Kzr 10' ; hut es])ecially of the songs of 
thanksgiving, in liturgical worship : Ps2fl' (aipe<ns), 
42' (;tVoX(i7i)<ri5), 69^ {atvefftt), Or,- 147' (both ^«o,uo- 
'Sirfrijis), Jon 2' {atfcctt Kai i(ojj.o\6yTi(ris), Neh 12-"' 
(a (io)io\&Ynai%, BA om.). In all these instances 
both AV and RV have 'thanksgiving'; in Ps 100 
title an<l v.* (both ^io/j.o\oyT!(ni) AV has ',' 
RV 'thanksgiving.' — The word .Tim is used in 
Neh 12^'- ^■•''' of the 'two companies that gave 
thanks' (nnin '«»', 50o nepl aMafm), and possibly 
a similar sense ('choirs') is intended in Jer ,30 
(Gr. in]'" (AV and RV 'out of them shall proceed 
thanksgiving,' LXX B fOofTes). In several in- 
stances .lyn means a thank-oll'ering : Am 4° (6^0- 
Xoyio), Lv 7'=- "• " (flwri'o [rys] atf^aews) 22-» (.Ti'in-nji, 
ev<rla fuxi*), 2Ch 29" 3.3'» (both atVfiris), Ps GO'*-" 
(the latter verse reads in AV 'whoso oHereth 
praise glorifietli Me,' RV ' whoso ollereth the 
sacrilice of thanksgiving,' Driver [Par. Psalter) 
'he that sacrilicetli thanksgiving,' IjXX Ovaia 
aivlaem So^a(rei fxe) 56'" 107-116", Jer 17'-" (all 
aiveffis) 33" {Swpa). A doubtful form occurs in 
Nell 12* ' Matlaiiinh who was over the tlianks- 
pivin;,',' AV and KV ; AVni 'i.e. the ps:\lins of 
thanksgiving ' ; RVm ' or tlie ihoirs.' Thi' llfbrcw 

is n'n;T''i', for which LXX, evidently by a confusion 
with the Heb. word for 'hands, gives ^Tri rii/ 
Xei/J-j" ; the Vulg. has super /ti/»inos. Ewald,, Keil, and Oettli tlie ab.stract noun 
nn-n, Ulsliauseu reads the inKn. niiin. It is not 
improbable that Jeduthun (which see) also be- 
longs to this root, and that it was originallj' a 
musical term and not a proper name. 

As ' give thanks to' was suggested above .as the 
most suitable rendering for .tilt in its liturgical 
sense, 'thanksgiving' might be adopted for .Tiin, 
and ' praise ' retained for ■"l^■•^l. 

3. In two instances, Jg 5- and Ps 72'°, where 
A V has ' praise,' RV substitutes ' bless,' which is 
the more exact rendering of fii, the verb emiiloycd 
(LXX in botli erXo7er>'). 

i. -CI, only in Piel. According to Hupfeld 
(Psalmen, 1862, iv. 421 f.), the original reference 
of this root* (which in the lleb. literature known 
to us is used cither of playing or singing [cf. Lat. 
canere]) is to the hum of a stringed instrument, 
and "linp, used in 57 titles as a designation of 
psalms, would he, properly, a song sung to a 
musical accompaniment. It is this word liDi.? 
which the LXX rejjroduces by ^J'aX/iis (whence 
psalm) from i/'dXXw, tlie usual LXX equivalent for 
121, and in Cod. Alex. (A) the liook of Psalms is 
entitled fdXrnpiov (whence Psalter). The word 
-III, with two exceptions (Jg 5'', in the Song of 
Deborah, ' I will .sing pr.aise [\taXi] to the Lord,' 
II Tp' ; and Is 12' 'sing [viJ-vqaaTe] unto the LdP.D, 
for He hath done excellent things') is continecl 
to the Book of Psalms, where it occurs in the 
following collocations : (a) with \ and n'n'S.s or .ii.T, 
usually rendeic<l in EV by ' sing praise(s) unto'; 
LXX in this and in all the following constructions, 
unless otherwise noted, ^aXKuv : Ps 27" 101' \W 
105- = 1 Ch 16" (viivelv) [in all these || -\'a] 9'= 30' 
[both II .-iiin] 47" (' to our king') 66* 71'-"- (' to Thee,' 
II -niN) 75'° (II Tin) 146'- (II hSn) ; once -"yx instead of 
7, Ps 59'8 ' unto Thee, O my strength, will 1 sing 
praises ' ; or with cs*^ ' to the name of God ' : 
Ps 18'» = 2 S 22''» (II rn\s) 92'- (|| nnVn^) 135' (II .TiS'?^) ; 
— (h) with an object, either a pronominal suHix, 
'sing Thee,' ' jiraise Thee in song': Ps 30" 57'" 
108* 138' (all II ^-li-s-) ; or an accusative, God or the 
Lord : Ps 47' 68^ (|| tc') 147' ; His n.ame: 7" (II mi.>t) 
9^ 61" 66' 68' (II Tci) ; the glory of His name : 66'- ; 
His power (.Tin:) : 21'* (II tc") ; once the accusative 
of the song : 47" (''•?»"; n?! ' make ye melody with 
a skilful strain,' LXX ^dXare avverws) ; — (c) abso- 
lutely : 578 (II Ti:)) 98* jll vn, nss, pi) 108'^ (|| tc*). 
Instrumental accompaniment to the .song appears 
in 108', and the wonl is used directly of playing 
upon an instrument in 33'- 71'-'= 98' 144"' 147' 14iP. 

Two nouns (besides T!;ip) from the root -ci are 
found in the OT. — (1) .t;"', which is used of instru- 
mental music in Am 5-', where ' the melody of 
thy harps' (1'^?^ n-iai, \f/a\pt.bti ipiyivav aov) is |1 ' the 
noise of thy songs' (^"JS' [toq, iixo" vSwy aov); but 
of singing m Is 5P (.tjP! ^ip) .Tiin, ^^o/ioXiyTiini' nal 
(puifijv aWirtus), and prob. in Ps 81' (.i-i^nN;. ' take 
up the nieloily,' Xd/itTf ipaXnif) and 98° (.ti?! Sip 
' the voice of melody,' ^ui.j \pa\fi.oO). In both the 
last instances, however, there is, in any case, an 
instrumental accompaniment implied. — Like •^^-l? 
and .Tii.-i (see above), .iio' is used also for the subject 
of song: Ex 15-, Is 12-', Ps 118'* .t (On-jvn rj 
'Jahweli is my strength and my [theme of] 
melody.' It may be noted that while MT is ex- 
actly the same in all three iias.sages, LXX 
in Exodus [d KiJpior] ^orjOis Kal uKfiraaTrit, in Lsaiah 
i) Siija iwv Kal i) atixaU ptov Ki'.pios, in Psalms iaxvs uo» 

• Its relation, if any, to noi Qal = 'lrim or pnine* fa ohsciirt 
(see Ilupfold, I*mlmrn, toe. cit. tntpra, footnote). It is micer' 
t..iin wtiether in Oft 2'2 T:;in n;' means * Mio tinic of tlie sin^rinfl 
(of hinis)' or 'the time of tlie iiriiniiii; (of vines).' Tlie LXX 
{xaipot tr,t i«f*y,t) an'i other versions InUe the latter view. 




ica! iiivrialf nou o Ki'^pios. — (2) A by-forni of the same 
woril is TTj. Its occurrences are : 2 S 23' [in tlie 
epitliet applied to David Vn-;;-; nn-:i c-y}, AV and 
KV 'the sweet j)salmist of Israel,' RVm 'pleasant 
in the psalms ot Israel ' ; on tlie construction see 
Driver on 2 S 8". H. P. Smith, who renders 'the 
Joy of tlie songs of Israel ' (cf. Clieyne, OP 22, 
'tlie dailing of Israel's songs'), thinks the trans- 
lation 'the sweet singer of Israel' can hardly be 
obtained from the Heb. expression. The LXX 
has evTrpeireU \pa\iiol 'lapajJX] ; Job Ho'" [' none saith, 
Where is God my MaUcr, who giveth songs in the 
night'?, i.e. perliaps (Dillni., Oav. ; ditierently 
Dulim), who by sudden a<ts of deliverance ^ves 
occasion for songs of triumph in the midst ot the 
night of trial ; LXX, reading or interpreting 
dilt'crently, i KaraTdatruv (pt'XaKas vvKrepivdi] ; Is 24'^ 
['from the uttermost parts of the earth liave we 
heard songs (LXX repara), Glory to the righteous '] ; 
Is 25' [' the melody of the terrible ones' {z'vtit TP!) 
II 'the noise of strangers' (c-ii pxi' ; both wanting 
in LXX), i.e. their hostile song of triumph, ' shall 
be brought low']; Ps 93- ['let us shout unto Him 
with melodies ' (i'? .%"i; nnpp ; LXX if i/'aXjuois 
dXaXa^u/' aOri^) || 'let US come to meet His face 
with thanksgiving' {.Tjina v;2 """BJ ; LXX tt/jo- 
^$d(Tuj/j.ef Td Trpj(7(jj7rov aOroO iv ^^oaoXoyiJirei)] j 119^ 
''Thy statutes have been (the subject of) melodies 
to me' (^'ijT 'STn niipi ; LXX ^a.\rd Jiaav /lot rd 
5(Ka(u.uard (70i')J. 

A V and KV usually render the verb tsi by ' sing 
praises.' For the nouns mpi and t?; they give 
'song,' except in Is 51^ Am 5^ where both have 
'melody,' Ps 8P 95'-' where both have ' psalm,' and 
Ps 98= wliere RV has 'melody' and AV 'psalm' 
(for 2 S 23' see above). Driver (Par. Pxalter) con- 
sistently renders the verb throughout the Psalms 
by 'make melody,' and the nouns by 'melody,' 
and probabl}- no closer equivalents in English 
could be found for the Hebrew terms. 

S. n^E* in Piel and Hithp. only ; a late word, con- 
6ned to Psalms (4 t.) and Ecclesia.stes (once). Its 
Aram, form is found in Daniel (see below). It is 
doubtful whether it should be connected -with nid 
(Piel and Hiphil) = 'to still or calm' (in Pr 29" of 
anger, in Ps 65' 89'° of the sea). Gesenius would 
find the connecting link in the notion of strobing 
or smoothing, hence 'to soothe with praises' (cr. 
the expression used of prayer, 's 'jS'nN n^n 'to 
make tlie face of any one sweet or pleasant'). Its 
occurrences are : Ps 63* [' my lips shall praise 
Thee' (LXX ircuveli,) || 'I will bless Thee' (^:i;!<) 
and 'I will lift up my hands' (-oj ksx)] 117' (s 
alixif, A!') 147'- {alfCiy ; both || i'rn) 145* (B 
^TToiyti;', A* oiVtii/ ; II T:n), Ec 4- {iiraii/eii/ ; ' I praised 
the dead which are alreatiy dead'), Dn 2-^ (aiyeif ; 
II min, of Daniel praising God when the secret of 
Nebuchadnezzar's dream had been revealed to 
him) 4"" {aiveTv ; in v.** || Ti3 'bless' and -nn 
'lionour'; in v." || con 'extol' and in.T ; of Nebu- 
chadnezzar praising God after the restoration of 
his rea.>,on) 5*-" (Theod. in both aiVe?!-, so LXX in 
v.*", but in v.« eu\oye:i/; of Belshazzar and his 
guests praising the gods of gold and silver, etc.).— 
The Ilillip. = ' make the subject of praise or boast' 
occurs in Ps 1U6-" = 1 Ch IG" (^n^^i? i^sp^ri) 'that 
we may make our boast of Thy praise ' ; LXX 
in Psalms toO ivKavxisBai i» rp aiv(au aov, in 
1 Chronicles k-ai Kavx'i<'OM iv rait alviaealv aov). 

The verb nzv in Piel is everj-where rendered in 
AV 'praise,' and so in RV except in Ps 117' [but 
not, inconsistently enough, 14<'-] 145', where we 
have 'laud.' This last term, which is that em- 
ployed in Driver's Par. Psiiller, might, with 
advantage, be adopted uniformly, at least in the 
Psalms, where there are so many words that re- 
ceive in the English versions tlie one rendering 
'praise.' See art. Laud. 

ii. History of Praise in Israel. — Like sacri- 
fice and other branches of the cultus, the praise 
oilered to Jahweh had in early times a mora 
unconventional and spontaneous character than 
it afterwards assumed, especially in the second 
Temple. From the first, both vocal and instru- 
mental music were employed in thin exercise, of 
which heartiness and loud noise (cf. tne meaning 
of tehilluh above) were leading characteristics. 
A typical example is the song of the children 
of Israel after the passage of the Red Sea (Ex 
15), which, although in its present form it con- 
tains much that belongs to a later age, yet La 
undoubtedly to some extent archaic, wliile the 
description of the part played by Miriam and the 
women, with their timbrels and dances (v.'*'-), 
may be regarded as a true picture of the manners 
in ancient Israel (cf. also the Song of Deborah in 
Jg 5, one of the most ancient of the undoubtedly 
genuine relics of early Heb. poetry). So in 2 S 6* 
( = lCh 138) < David and all the house of Israel 
played before the Lord with all their might, even 
with songs [reading, with 1 Ch 13', div31 ijrSjj 
for DV'n? 'SI!,'''?? of 2 S 6', cf. the same phrase 
li-V;? used in v.'* of David's dancing] and with 
harps and with psalteries, and with timljrels, and 
with castanets, and mth cymbals.' In short, 
praise to God, whether upon the occasion of any 
great act of deliverance, or when the people as- 
sembled at the sanctuaries either of the Northern 
or the Southern kingdom, partook largely of the 
noisy character of vintage and bridal rejoicings 
(Jg 9", Lv 19", Ps 78'"). When the prophet .A.mos 
denounces the crass unspiritual worship of his 
day, he delivers this message from Jahweli, ' Take 
thou away from Me the noise of thy songs, for I 
will not hear the melody of thy harps ' (Am 5^, 
cf . 8'°). Isaiah promises to the people, ' Ye shall 
have a song as in the night when a holy feast is 
kept, and gladness of heart as when one goeth 
with a pipe to come unto the mountain of the 
Lord, to the Rock of Israel ' (Is 3(P). The author 
of La 2' can say of the rude plundering Chalda?an 
soldiery in the temple, ' They have made a noise 
in the house of the Lord as in the day of a solemn 
assembly.' The same impression is conveyed by 
some of the phrases which occur in the musical 
titles of the earlier psalms. For instance, Ps 57. 
58. 59. 75 are set to the tune of Al-ta-shheth, 
' destroy not,' probably the opening words of a 
vintage song (Is 65*). Cf., further, on this point 
W. R. Smith, OTJC^ 209, 223 f. 

We should have individual songs of praise in 
the Song of Hannah (1 S 2'"-) and the Song of 
Hezekiah (Is 38"'-*'), were it not that neither of 
these can be supposed to have belonged originally 
to their present context (see on the former. Driver, 
Text of Sam. 21 f., and on the latter, Cheyne, OP 
117 f., and cf. the analogous cases of the Prajer 
of Jonah and the Psalm of Hahakkuk). 

As to the arrangements for praise in the pre- 
exilic Temple, we have no precise information. 
In particular, we are left very much in the dark 
as to how far any special class performed or 
directed this service. The statements on this 
subject contained in the Books of Chronicles are 
unfortunately of little nse, owing to the tendency 
of the Chronicler to antedate the institutions of 
his own day. But while it will be generally 
admitted that the part he attributes to DaWd is 
greatly exaggerated, it is probable enough that 
this king, whose skUl as a musician is witnessed 
to in Am 6', as well as in 2 S 6'- '■*, used his talents 
in organizing the Temple music, whether he fur- 
nished to any appreciable extent the hymns used 
or not. It is undoubtedly the case that, down t« 
the Exile, praise was the privilege of the con- 
gregation at large (Cheyne, OP 194), but this ii 



not inconsistent witli at least the rudiments of 
the elaborate system which we meet witli in 
Clironicles havinj; been in existence in pre-exilic 
times. It is hanily liUely tliut the singers, who 
are lirst expressly naiiieil in Neh 7" ( = Ezr 2^'), 
anil of whom 14S (12S) returned, or were believed 
to have returned, with Zerubbabel, represent a 
class that hud been instituted during the Exile, 
wlien uo elaborate cultus was possible, or during 
the early years of the Ueturn, when the circum- 
stances were by no means favourable to such a 
new de|>arture. It seems more reasonable to con- 
clude that they were the reiiresenlalivcs or de- 
scendants of singers who had performed this office 
in the pr6-exilic Temjile (see art. I'lilESTS AND 
Levitks, p. 74''). Uut it is equally beyond ques- 
tion that after the Ketiirn the whole system of 
praise was re-organized by Ezra and Nehemiah. 

At the Return the singers appear to have formed 
a single guild, ' tiie sons of A,s:iph'* (Neh 7''^ = Ezr 
2"), and are distinguislied from the Levites (Ezr 
10^'-, Neh 7''". In Neli 12-'''- the musical service 
at the dedication of the wall is divided between the 
Levites and 'the sons of the singers'). Such pas- 
sages as Neh IV^-"- ■-■ =^ 12''- '•'• -••■ ", where the .singers 
are included among the Levites, do not belong to 
the .Memoirs of Nehemiah, at least in a |)ure form, 
and their account approximates to the condition 
of things represented in 1 Cb ly"- 23^', 2 Ch 2'J-» 
etc. (cf. Ezr 3'°, where ' the Levites the sons of 
Asai)li ' is the phrase of the Chronicler). The guild 
of Asaph at a later period shared the musical 
service with tlie Koraliites (cf. 2 Cb 2il'" and tlie 
titles of Ps 42-49 and 84. 85. 87. 88), who, by the 
time of the Chroni< ler, have become porters and 
doorkeepers (1 Ch U'" 20'- '"etc.). Tlie Cbronieler 
himself is acquainted with three guilds, — IIkman, 
AsAi'H, and Jeduthu.n or Ethan (I Ch O"^"-" 
15" 16'"- 25'"), to whom a Levilical origin is at- 
tributed, lienian being descended from Koliath, 
Asanli from tier.shom, and Ethan from Merari 
(1 Cii 6^""). These tliree the Chronicler charac- 
teristically represents as choirmasters appointed 
by David, to whom the whole organization of the 
service of praise is attributed, and who is said to 
have divi(fed the singers into 24 courses (1 Ch 
gsiir. 1516-111 i(;j 25'"-, 2 Ch 5'- 29-\ cf. Sir 47"). 

When we pass to the question of the use of a 
hymnal or similar forms in the Temple service, we 
encounter fresh uncertainties. Whatever view be 
taken of the contents of the Psalter (ami there is 
a growing tendency to increase the jiroportion not 
only of post-exilic but of Maccalxean psalms), it 
wil) be generally admitted that, in its present form, 
the whole collection bears marks of having been 
intended for in the sec</H(/ Temple. To wliat 
extent it may contain older (possibly even Davidic) 
psalms, which have been adapted for later con- 
gregational use, to what extent Nehemiah found 
the work of collecting already done for him, and 
how far a later hand, say that of Simon the 
Maccabee (Clieyne, 01' 12 and pu.^.mn), is respon- 
sible for the book .'is we now have it, are questions 
that cannot be said to be yet finally decided. Even 
so cautious a scholar a.s \V. 11. Smith was inclined 
to think that certain 'facts seem to indicate that 
even Book I. of the Psalter did not exist during the 
Exile, when the editing of the historical books 
was completed, and that in psalmody as in other 
matters the ritual of the secund Temide was com- 
pletely reconstructed ' (t/^'-/''- 219). ' It would be 
absurd to maintain that there were no psalms 
before the Exile. Ihit it is not absurd to question 
whether Teiiiplebymnscan have greatly resembled 
those in the l'salt<;r' (Choyne, 01' 213 f.). 

It is a fair question whether praise was not 

• Tliis (riiild ffivca its name to one of the collections la the 
PBalter, consisting o( Ps 50 and 7a-s3. 

oll'ered in the Synagooije as well as in the Temple. 
This is usually denied (see Gibson, J£xpositur, July 
I«'JO, pp. 25-27, and cf. Schiirer, HJP II. ii. 70, 
where the parts of the Synagogue service are 
enumerated), but Cheyne (OP 12, 14, 363) urges 
forcible considerations in favour of a diflerent con- 
clusion. There is all the less dilliculty in conceiv- 
ing of the Psalter as a manual of praise in the 
Synagogue when we observe that, even in post- 
exilic times, praise might be otlered at other times 
and places than public worship. Thus, not only 
was Ps 118 sung in the Temple on high festival 
days (as on the eight successive days of the Feast 
of Booths and that of the Dedication), but the 
Hallel (Ps 113-118), of which it forms a part, was 
sung in two sections (113. 114. and 115-118) in 
every dwelling-place where the Passover was cele- 
brated. It is to the singing of the second part of 
the Halld over the fourth and last cup that the 
vfiviitrai'Tes of Mt 26*', Mk 14-" refers. Again, the 
'Songs of the Ascents' (Ps 120-134) are perliaps most 
plausibly explained as 'Songs of the Pilgrimages,' 
i.e. songs with which the caravans of pilgrims 
enlivened their journey to the stated festivals. 
See, further, Duhm, ' Ps.almen ' (Hdcom.), p. xxiv. 

How far in post-exilic times the general body 
of the people took part in the public service of 
praise is noi, clear, but the analogy of other parts 
of the ritual suggests that they participated in it 
to a very limited extent. In Sir 50'™- (referring 
to the time of Simon the high priest) the people 
' fell down upon the earth on their faces to worshij) 
the Lord ' and 'besought the Lord Most High in 
prayer' (cf. Lk 1'°, Ac 3'). It is of the sons oj 
Aaron that it is said tliat they 'shouted and 
sounded the trumpets of beaten work,' whUe ' the 
sin(ji;rs also praised him with their voices.' This 
corresponds clo.sely with 2 Ch 7' ' all the peojile 
. . . bowed themselves with their faces to the 
ground upon the pavement and worshipped and 
gave thanks unto the Loitl) (ni.T^ n'nini ii-ny'i, Kal 
Trpoff€Kivi}(Tav Kal yvouv TtfJ Ki'pf^^j), saying. For he 
is good, for his mercy endureth for ever.' Even 
this last formula appears to be in this instance 
not so much the language of praise as of prayer, 
A similar remark applies to 1 Mae 4" 'all the 
people fell upon their faces and worshipped and 
gave praise {-qiXbyriuev) unto heaven, which had 
given them good success.' So in 2 Ch 29'-" ' all the 
congregation tvorshipped, and the singers sang, and 
the trumpets sounded ' (on all these passages see 
Biichler, as cited in the Literature below). On the 
other hand, that some part in the service of praise 
was taken by the people is clear from such a 
liturgical direction as ' let all the jieople say 
Amen, Hallelujah' (Ps 106«, cf. 1 Ch 16* where 
the citation of this Psalm is followed by the atlir- 
niation, 'and all the people .said Amen, and praised 
the Lord'). Moreover, it is extremely probable 
that, in antiphonal psalms like Ps 118, the congre- 
gation as well as the Levitical choirs took part. 
Biichler (i^^l7'ir xix. flS'.l'J] p. 103 n.) will have it 
that the call in Ps 150' ' praise him with the sound 
of the trumpet' {s/iuphdr, 'horn,' mainly a secular 
instrument, whereas the oHicial sacred trumpet 
is hi1z6zSrah, cf. Driver, Joel and A »ios, p. 144 f. ) 
is addressed not to the Levites but to the congre- 
gation. He compares Ps SP"-, and Jth 16"'- where 
Judith leads oil' and all the people take up the soul-. 

Many psalms, e.g. 95. 96. 98. 99. 100, not to speak 
of the Hallelujah jisalms (which are all post- 
exilie), were evidently composed from the lirst for 
liturgical use, and others may have been trans- 
formed from a more private and individual use to 
be the expression of the church-nation's praise. It 
is of course only to a limited extent that the 
Talmmlio accounts of the service of praise in the 
Temple can be accepted aa correct even for the 




closing period of OT liistory, but there is good 
reason to believe that tlie list given in Tamid (vii. 
4) of tlie psalms lliat were sung on eacli day of tlie 
week, at the morning sacrilico, is an ancient one. 
These psalms were as follows: Sunday '24 (M Tijs 
HiSs <ra(3,JdTu^), Monday 'IS (1? dcvripf aafi^drov), 
Tuesday 82, Wednesday 9-4 (B rcrpaSi aa^lidruv), 
Thursday SI, Friday 93 (B eis Trjy iffiipnv toS -n-po- 
aa^^drou ore KaTifKiarai i) yrj). Sabbath 92 (Heb. 
rp::rT dv^ T'^', B eis Tt]!/ ij/j.^pav tov aaS^idTov), See, 
further, Neubauer, Stud. JIM. ii. 1 if. The sing- 
ing and playing of tlie Levites on these occasions 
was accompanied by the blowing of silver trumpets 
(kazCzSruth) by two priests (cf. Nu lO'"'", Ezr 3'", 
Neh i2^5^ 1 Ch 15^ 16", 2 Ch 5'^ 7" 29='^-^, Sir 50«). 

See, further, on the whole subject, the articles 
Music, Priests and Levites, Psaljis, Temple, 

Literature.— On the Heb. terms see the Oxf. Heb. Lex., to 
which the first part of the present article lias veiT special 
ohlin^ations. On the history, etc., of praise: Biichler, * zur 
Gesch. d. Teinpelravisilc u. d. Tenipelpsalmen.' in ZATW \\x. 
|1899i i. 9611., ii. 329ff., x.\. i. 97 tf. ; Kuberle, DU Teinpetsmvjer 
im AT, 1S99 ; Che.vne, OP, 1SS9, passim ; W. U. Smith, OTJC-, 
1S92, esp. pp. 190-22.=); Van Hoonaclcer, Le sacerdoce levitiqtie, 
1S99, passim: Nowack, Lehrb. d. lleb. Arch., 1894, i. 271 f. ; 
Schurer, yj I's, IsilS, ii. 240 ff., 29:tef. [UJP il. i. 225 ff., 290 ft.); 
and the Commentaries on the Psalms. J, A. SELBIE. 

PRAISE IN NT.— Praise (aii-os, ^iroii-os (1 P 2"= 

.tSin), aiVfo-ij, Sdja, dperri, alvelv, iiraiveti', So^d^eiv) 
)ilays a large part in the NT, both the praise of 
God by angels and by men, and the praise of man 
by God and his fellow -man. 

i. The praise of God is the work of the angels 
(Lk2"-"--'' 19^), and also of man. The chief object 
of the existence of the redeemed is to show forth 
the praises of Him who called them out of darkness 
into light (1 P 2'") : Gentiles join now in the work 
of iiraise (Ro lo'-'^^') ; and all, Jew and Gentile 
alike, exist to the praise of the glory of His grace 
(Eph p-», Ph 1", 2Th 1'°, IP 2'^'): Christians 
uller their sacrifice of praise to God (He 13'^) : 
universal praise wUl be the characteristic of the 
last day (Rev 19^) : whereas failure to give God 
praise for His mercies is the note of heathenism 
(Ro \-\ Rev 11" 14' 16', cf. Ac 11°-^). The subjects of 
praise are God's intrinsic excellences (dpeTox, 1 P 2'", 
where see Hort) ; Ilis uuiver.sal gifts of creation, 
of providence, of redemption (Rev IS^-*, Ac 2" and 
nassim); His promises to individuals (Ro 4™); His 
blessings to individuals, especially for the miracles 
of our Lord's lifetime (Lk IS" 'W\ cf. 2 Co P). 

' Confess thy sins ' (cf. Joshua's words to Achan 
in Jos 7'°), and implying that truthful confession 
of the real facts of lite brings glory to God. 

The tone of praise to God is specially marked in 
the Gospel of St. Luke, the Acts, the Ep. to the 
Ephesians, and the Ajiocalypse. It finds its ex- 
pression in semi-rhythmical language and formal 
hymns (see Hymn), and also m doxologies. The 
latter were primarily liturgical (cf. 2 Co l-" oi' airroO 
rb 'Aiirff t(j; Seip xp6s Soiav oi' t)ii.Qiv), and are adapta- 
tions from existing Jewish liturgies. The fountain- 
head of them may perhaps be traced to 1 Ch 29'", 
from which originated two types— (a) beginning 
with the word ' Blessed ' ((uXoyrrrdi, i.e. bless- 
worthy, worthy of receiving blessing), implying 
'an intelligent recognition of His abiding good- 
ness, as made known in His past or present acts,' 
Lk 1**, 2 Co P IP', Ro !^ 9; Eph P (where see 
Lightfoot), 1 P P (where see Hort) ; (J) ascribing 
to God glory (power, might, dominion) for ever. 
This is the commoner type in the NT and in 
subsequent Christian liturgies : the simplest form 
V il S6ia (Is Tous aiUvas' dixifv (Ro IP") is varied 
by the several writers to suit the exact context 

(Gal P, Ro 16", Pli 4'», Eph 3=', 1 Ti 1" 6'^ 2 Ti 
4'", He 13-' [see Westcott, Additional Note], I P 
4" 5", 2 P 3'8, Jude ", Rev P 5'" 7'=), and it left 
its ultimate mark on the Lord's Prayer in the 
addition of the doxology, perhaps originally maile 
when that praj-er was used in Eucliaristic worship 
(Chase, The Lord's Prayer in the Early Church, 
'Texts and Studies,' I. ii'i. pp. 16S-174). 

On praise as a part of public worship, see art. 
Church vr. vol. i. p. 428^, art. Hymn in voL \L, 
and cf. the preceding article. 

ii. ' The idea of man as praised by God is not 
distinctly recognized in the OT' (Hort on 1 P V). 
There God is spoken of as well pleaseil ^yith men ; 
but the NT goes beyond this in the word ' jiraise,' 
which implies not only moral approbation, but the 
public exi)ression of it. The clitt'erence may have 
arisen from our Lord's life ; He had moved about 
among men, accepting praise and homage where it 
was simple and genuine (Mt 21"^) ; giving His own 
praise without stint to John the Bapti-st (Mt 11"), 
to all acts of faith (Mt 8'" 9- IS^ 16', Lk 7"), to good 
and loyal service (Mt 25'-'-^, Lk 19"), to all gener- 
osity of gift(Mk 12« 146), to self-devotion (Lk 10-"), 
to prudence (Lk 16*). Hence the ascended Lord is 
represented as sending His messages of praise as 
well as of blame to the Seven Churches of Asia (Rev 
P) ; and the praise of God is the ultimate verdict 
to ^^hicll Christians appeal (1 P 1'), which will 
correct hasty judgments of men, and be the true 
praise exactly appropriate to each man's actions 
(1 Co 4'"* 6 (TTaivos) : the true Jew, who bears 
rightly the name of Judah ( = ' praised'), is he 
whose praise conies from God not from men (Ro 
2-", where see Gitlbrd in 'Speaker's' Com.). 

The praise of man by his fellow-men is naturally 
of more doubtful value. On the one hand it is 
liable to be unreal, shallow, flattering, and to 
lead to a false self-satisfaction ; our Lord avoided 
the shallow praise of the crowds, and of individuals 
who did not weigh the meaning of their words 
(Lk 18'"); He warned His followers against the 
desire for such praise (Mt 6', Lk 6'-®) ; He traced 
the rejection of the truth by the Pharisees to the 
fact that they sought honour from each other, and 
did not seek the honour that comes from the only 
God (Jn S-"-", cf. 12") : St. Paul refused to seek 
glory from men (1 Tli 2"), and was ever on his 
guard against pleasing men (Gal 1"*). 

On the other hand, St. Paul appeals to the con- 
sideration of any praise of men as a proper incentive 
to Christians (ei rts liraivos, Ph 4^*) : the proper func- 
tion of human government is the praise of well-doera 
(Ro 13", 1 P21-'): St. Paul praises whole Churches 
for their virtues (1 Co IV and passim) : he lavishes 
the highest praises on each of his fellow-workers 
(1 Co 4" and passim): their praise runs through 
all the Churches (2 Co 8"*) : his aim is, and that of 
all Christians should be, to provide things honest in 
the sight of men as well as of God (2 Co 8-', Ro 12"). 
Praise of men is treated as a danger when it stands 
in antithesis to the praise of God ; but when it re- 
flects the jiraise of God in the mirror of the Chris- 
tian's conscience, it is a welcome incentive to good, 

W. Lock. 

PRAYER. — An attempt will be made to treat 
the subject historically, keeping separate the 
evidence supplied by difl'erent portions of the 
Bible as to human practice and Divine teaching 
on the .subject of Prayer. With regard to the OT, 
it will be assumed, for the purjiose of the article, 
that the books which it contains, whatever their 
resjiective dates may be, are on the whole trust- 
worthy guides as to the religious beliefs and 
practices of the periods which they describe.* 

* It can scarcely be denied, however, that a writer like tht 
Chronicler is apt to antedate the beliefs and practices of hit 
own ajje. 




I. In the Old Te.stamkxt.— i. Prc/n/un/.—lt 
will lirst be necessary to limit the sviliject of 
inquiry. Prayer (i^??) may he understood widely, 
PC as to inohule every form of address from man to 
(lod, whate\-er its character. Hannah's song (1 S 
2) is a thanksp:iving, yet it is introduced by the 
words ' Hannah praj-ea and .said,' and the pra3'er 
of Hab 3 is a psalm. But address by way of 
petition must form tlie main subject of tliis article, 
though it is impossilile to isolate this division of 
jirayer, see, e.g.. Is 63'-64'-, where, thanks- 
giving, pleading, confession, and supplication are 

Certain axioms with regard to prayer are taken 
for granted, viz. (1) God hears prayer; (2) God is 
moved by prajer ; (.3) prayer may "be not merely a 
request, but a pleading, or even an expo.stulation. 
It may here be added that OT prayer is little 
occupied with what becomes the main subject of 
prayer in NT, viz. spiritual and moral needs. 
This remark, however, applies only partially to 
the Psalms. 

The terms for ' prayer' must next be considered. 
The verbs are : 1. cz/^ (tlij (Gn 4-^, where see Dill- 
mann's note), or simply n"!;j ; this is the oldest and 
simplest phrase. It is perpetuated in NT (iiriKa- 
\u(j6ai rb dfo/jia, Ac 2-' 9'^ a/.). The correlative 
word is njy ' answer ' (sometimes wrongly, Hos 
2-'-^, tr. 'hear'), Gn 35' and Psalms, /)«.?«{»(. It 
signifies an answer either by external or spiritual 
helj>, or by inward assurance. 2. '?^?nn primarilj- 
of intercessory prayer, Gn 20', Job 42'°, but also 
of prayer generally, 1 S 1-'' and elsewhere. From 
this verb comes the common name for prayer in 
its widest sense, n^jB, noticeil above. 3. I'ij, lit. 
'to fall upon,' so ' to approach' in order to sup- 
plicate. See Is 53'-, where the 'approaching' is 
on behalf of others, and cf. ivTvyxa.f^n' in NT. i. 
Sxy ' to ask ' (a) for some grace or deliverance, (/3) 
for information or guidance. The correlative is 
again n;;' 1 S 28". 5. "" 'is-nx n^ Ex 32", an anthro- 
pomorphic phrase ('make the face sweet or pleas- 
ant'), never literally tr. in AV, but rendered 
' beseech,' etc. 6. pi'i ' cry,' used of those who 
pray for the redressing of a wrong. 

Another detached point may be taken before 
entering on 'he historical treatment, viz. — 

Postures in Prayer. — (1) Standing. This was 
the commonest attitude, e.g. Abraham, Gn 18-'- ; 
Hannali, 1 S 1™. It continues in NT times (but 
cf. below on Acts) ; and in Jewish usage the 
Shemoneh E.irch had the name of AmicUth (stand- 
ing), because the congregation stood during their 

(2) Kneeling, Ps 95» ; Solomon, 1 K 8" ; Daniel, 
Dn 6'° ; see, further, art. K\i;el. 
• (3) Prostriilion, i.e. kneeling with face bent to 
the ground in case of urgency, Nu 16'", 1 K 18''* 
(and in NT Mt 20'"). 

(4) Sitting, 2 S 7", a doubtful instance (but see 
H. P. Smith, ad loe.). In addilion to these 
postures of the body the attitude of the hands 
should be noticed. These were : (1) lifted, Ps 63^ 
(cf. I Ti 2"), and (2) sjiread out, i.e. with open up- 
turned palms symbolical of the act of receiving 
from God, Ex O-*, Is l'\ 

ii. Pntrinrrhnl Religion. — Leaving these pre- 
fatory matters, we come to prayer as it appears 
in i).itriarchal religion. ' Then began men to call 
u|Jon the name of the Lord' (0114-"). This lirst 
notice is of real importance. There had been 
abundant consciousness of God before, but tradi- 
tion fixed the commencement of habitual prayer 
at tlie beginning of the third generation. "Thence 
we pass over a long interval to Abraham, and enter 
with him into the fullest and freest exercise of 
prayer. (1) His prayer is dialogue. It C(msistB 
not merely in man drawing near to God, but God 

to man, inviting it and disclosing His purposes. 
The same thing occurs in the case of Moses, and 
something of the kind is supposed in certain 
psalms, where God Himself sjicaks, e.g. Ps 91. 
(2) Intercession is prominent in patriarchal prayer, 
Gn 17'* IS'-^"^- 20' ; cf. below on proiiliets as inter- 
cessors. (3) There are also personal prayers : Gn 
15'^, a prayer for a son ; Gn 24'-, Eliezer's on his 
journey ; more prominent still in J.acob's life. 
Jacob's first prayer was a vow, Gn 2S-" : his jirayer 
in Gn 32""''^ is in fear of Esau ; his wrestling with the 
angel (32'-") is described in Hos 12 (' made suppli- 
cation ') as involving prayer. (4) Patriarchal bless- 
ings are prayers. Wlieri man blesses man, it is (a) 
primarily a vision of the Divine purpose for the 
jierson blessed and a declaration of it ; it is pro- 
]jhetic (e.g. Gn 49'), but it is (6) also a prayer. 
This is especially clear in a blessing attributed to 
the next period, Dt 33, e.g. v.". As blessing is 
partlj' prayer, so also is cursing, as will be seen in 
considering the imprecatory jisalms j cf. aiso Neh 
13^; Sir 4'', where the is called a supplica- 
tion. (5) The oath in Gn 14-- (' I have lift up mine 
hand ') is a kind of prayer, being an imprecation, 
not on another, but on the speaker in case of his 
failing in his intention. The becomes so 
fixed in common use that without regard to its 
original meaning it is even used of God Himself, 
Ezk 30'. (6) The vow. See art. Vow. 

iii. The Law. — The evidence of the Law as to 
prayer is negative. AVith one exception (Dt 
'20'"'°), there is nothing about prayer in the Law. 
There is no ordinance as to the employment of the 
formulai (or charms) common in the ritual of other 
n.ations. This did not tend to the undervaluing 
of prayer, but rather kept it in its proper place. 
It is not recognized as a means of cioing service, 
but it is left to be a spontaneous expression of 
human needs. The lasting efi'ect of this negative 
teaching may be seen in Berakhoth iv. 4. If 
prayers are said only to fulfil a duty (as a charge), 
they will not be heard by God. Kut to return to 
the exception, the formulae of worship in Dt 20. 
Even these are not strictly prayers, vv.'-" are a 
thanksgiving, vv."- " a profession of past obedi- 
ence, and v.'° alone contains supplication. Vv.'"- " 
are strangely like the so-called prayer of the 
Pharisee in Lk 18"-''. There also is the claim of 
past obedience, and in respect to the same point, 
viz. the payment of tithe (the hallowed things). 
But we cannot doubt that private prayer was 
habitually connected with sacrifice from early 
times. Instances are spread over the OT, e.g. 
Abraham (Gn 12"), Solomon (1 K S-*- »), Job (42»). 
There remains for consideration the typical char- 
acter of incense. Incense (see iNCENSE) was taken 
up into Hebrew usage from the stock of primitive 
religious customs among the nations around, and 
was originally an anthiopomorjihic form of pro- 
pitiation liy sweet odours (cf. Dn 2^"). Hut as 
time went on it was regarded as typical of prayer 
and associated with it. See Ps 141-, and in NT 
Lk 1'°, Kev 5" 8*. But if the Law teaches nothing 
about prayer, the lawgiver teaches much. No 
biblical life is fuller of prayer than that of Mose?. 
The history of his call (Ex 3. 4) gives pr.ayer in 
tlie form of ' colloquy ' with God as noticed above. 
There are his jirivate prayers in times of difliculty 
(Ex 5-, Nu II"""), and, above all, his frequent 
intercessory prayers (1) for Pharaoh to ol>tain 
relief from plagues ; (2) for Israel in all the times 
of the murmuring and rebellion, e.g. Ex 32""". 
What Moses did not lay on Israel as a precept 
he taught them by example, though it may be 
doubted whether access to God in prayer was not 
lookeil upon as the prerogative of a prophet. 

iv. Tlic Period o/ the Kingdom. — This may be 
taken next, though in the intermediate time Jos 




7«-» iQi* and Jg 6 are to be noted, and the raising 
up of judges is almost always introduced by the 
phrase, ' the children of Israel cried unto the Lord.' 
Samuel next appears to carry on the great inter- 
cessory tradition. In Jer 15' Moses and Samuel 
stand together as chief representatives of this form 
of prayer. And the narrative justifies the Divine 
words. Twice over Samuel maKes great eflbrts of 
intercession for the nation (1 S 7°''°) ; and again in 
regard to their desire for a king throughout chs. 
8 and 12. He testifies himself to his continuous 
pleading for them, and expresses his sense that it 
is part of the obligation of his prophetic office, ' God 
forbid that I should sin against the Lord in ceasing 
to pray for you' (1 S 12^). Besides his national, 
there is also his personal intercession. The rejec- 
tion of Saul grieved Samuel, and he cried unto the 
Lord all night, 15". And something of prayer is 
implied in the mourning for Saul, recorded in 15** 
and 16'. David, being himself regarded as a pro- 
phet, is represented as praying without an inter- 
cessor. This appears in 2 S T's-^^. It is hardly 
necessary to prove that both the lesser and the 
greater prophets of the kindly period are regarded 
as intercessors. It is mainly in this character, as 
intercessor for a nation perishing by famine, that 
Elijah stands before us in the great drama of 1 K 
18. And the test which is there applied to decide 
between Jehovah and Baal is, which of the two 
hears prayer. Intercession, as part of the pro- 
phetic function, will come out more clearly stUl 
when we deal with the prophets who have left 
writings ; but there is a special interest in finding 
it in men of action, such as Samuel, Elijah, Isaiah, 
Jeremiah, and another leader who was not a pro- 
phet, namely, Nehemiah. Their prayer is not 
merely to put the matter in the Lord's hand, but 
to strengthen themselves for action. 

The Books of Samuel and Kings contain prayers 
which suggest the subject of the place of prayer. 
The ark denoted the local presence of God, and 
therefore the place of praj^er. So Hannah (1 S 1) 
and David (2 S 7) resort thither. But as sacrifice 
is oftered at ' high places,' prayer may be oB'ered 
there also. So Samuel at Jlizpah (1 S 7^^), and 
Solomon at Gibeon (1 K 3). When the temple is 
dedicated, it is as a house of prayer, if, notwith- 
standing its affinities to Deut., we may take 1 K 8 
as in some degree representing the mind of the 
founder. If, however, the prayer belongs in form 
and spirit to another period, it is no less worthy of 
attention in two important respects. (1) At the 
dedication of the centre of a great sacrificial 
cultus, not a word is said in the prayer about the 
sacrifices, but only about prayer to be offered 
there, or 'toward' that 'place.' For prayer 
' toward ' a place, cf. Ps 28-, Dn 6'° ; and, even for 
Islam, Jerusalem was at first the Kibla. The 
temple is the house of prayer in Is 56' : and it will 
be seen to have been so regarded in NT. (2) The 
other point to notice in Solomon's prayer is the 
apparent conflict of two conceptions — that of some 
local habitation of God therein, and that of the 
impossibility of limiting His presence. — We have 
also two prayers attributed to Hezekiah — the 
first in Is 37''"'-'°, offered in the temple, a prayer 
for God's glory in the spirit of Ps 115 ; the second 
(Is 38') a prayer for himself, recalling his rifjht- 
eousiiess in the spirit of Ps 26, yet none the less 

V. The Exile and Return. — Ewald (Hist. Isr. 
{Eng. tr. ) v. 23) has justly emphasized the iniport- 
ance assumed by prayer in this period. There 
were two main causes for this. (1) The necessary 
cessation of .sacrifice after the destruction of the 
temple. This threw the burden of worshiji wholly 
on prayer. (2) A sense of abandonment by God, 
which produced earnestness in seeking for an ex- 

planation of His dealings, and a return of Hie 
favour. The evidence in sujjport of Ewald's asser- 
tion is twofold — (a) the great prayers extant from 
this period ; (6) the personal hahits of individual* 
recorded in the narrative, (a) Great prayers ex- 
tant. First and greatest is Is 63'-64'-. The pro- 
phet comes forward and ' leads the devotions of 
the Church of the Exile.' The prayer is remark- 
able as appealing to the Fatherhood of God, 63" 
64*. The other four are, Ezr 9'" chiefly con- 
fession ; Neh 1 ; Levites' prayer in Neh 9, iu the 
form of historical retrospect (cf. Ps 106); Daniel's 
confession, Dn 9. On these last four some general 
remarks may be made. Confession is prominent, 
acknowledgment of the sin of Israel and the 
righteousness of God. They are cast in the same 
model, and contain the same phrases. Fasting 
has become connected with prayer (cf. Zee 7'). 
The confession in these prayers is representative 
confession, e.g. Nehemiah (Neh 1*) takes the sins 
of Israel upon himself and confesses them as a 
whole. He is an intercessor, but he does not 
stand apart ; he regards himself as involved in 
the guilt. (b) Personal habiti of individuals. 
Ezra at the river Ahava (Ezr 8-'"^) relies on prayer 
for the safety of his expedition. As to Nehemiah, 
it is unnecessary to show in detail that constant 

Erayer is the characteristic of his journal. It is 
is resource in difficulty and discouragement, and 
takes a distinctly personal character, ' remember 
me, my God.' Again, Dn 6 is an illustration of 
how prayer to God had become a distinctive mark 
of the Jews in exile. In it the enemies of Daniel 
decide to find their opportunity, and on it base 
their attack. In this narrative (Dn 6'") we first find 
unmistakable mention of the hours of prayer as 
afterwards practised by the Jews, though perhaps 
Ps 55" may be taken to denote them. As is 
usually the case in ritual, an endeavour \\ as made 
to tin^ sanction for the three hours of praj-er in 
the earliest times, and Gn 19-'' 24^ 28" were 
referred to by the Jews for this purpose. 

vi. The Prophets. — 'The Latter Prophets,' i.e. 
the prophetic writings, niaj- now be considered as 
a whole, and without reference to date, in order 
to see what special characteristics are to be attri- 
buted to the prayers of prophets. It has already 
been seen that the latter were intercessors in virtue 
of their calling. The ground of this was twofold. 
The prophet %\as an acceptal>le person ; but, fur- 
ther, he had the Spirit (e.g. Ezk 2-), and the pos- 
session of it enabled him not only to interpret the 
mind of God to man, but also the mind of man 
to God (cf. Ro 8=«). The proi>hct thus knew what 
the needs of the nation were, much better than 
the nation itself. Intercession in the OT is not 
generally the duty of the priest. For an excep- 
tion see Jl 2", Mai 1" ; and in Apocr. 1 Mac '^-^\ 
Avhen, of course, prophets had ceased to exist. 
Bej-ond this general intercessory function we may 
trace three special aspects of prayer in the ]iro- 
phetical writings, which may be illustrated almost 
exclusively from Jeremiah, (a) Personal prayer. 
In Jeremiah intermixed with and in reference to 
the difficulties and trials of his own mi-ssion { 
Jer 20). (b) Seeking to know. It is by prayer (in 
part, at least) that the prophet obtains the bivine 
revelations, Jer 33' 42* (where ten days pass before 
the answer is reported), (c) Interreding to avert 
present or predicted evil. See Au\ 7 and Jer 14. 
15. The latter passage is an important example. 
In ch. 14 we have — (1) intercession, vv.*''-' ; (2) 
answer forbidding intercession, "'"''' ; (3) renewed 
pleading in spite of prohibition ; (4) renewed 
Divine tliicatenings, '■'•"' ; (5) a wail fro u the 
prophet ending in fresh intercession, ""— . To 
this ag.ain comes an answer (15''") of final con- 
demnation ; but even this does not close the di* 





lojjue of prayer, wliicli continuts: to Ij-'. This 
ruturd of iiiU-rcession throws a liylit ajjon tlie 
inner life of the prophets, and tlieir intimate re- 
lations with Uod, whitli we liardly lind elsuwliere 
in OT. Tlie limits here set to intercession are an 
anticipation of 1 .In o'". And tlie persistence of 
the prophet, although rejected, is nevertheless an 
inspired persistence. 

vii. Psaliii.i, Proverbs, Job. — Although the 
prayers in the Psalter exceed in amount and 
variety all other prayers in OT, yet they do not 
contribute to our studj' of the suhject so much as 
they would do if the circunist.ances and persons 
from which they jiroceeded were known to us. 
Althou^'h the title 'Prayers of David' is imjjlied in 
the subscription closing the second book (I's 72'-"), 
yet only one ps;iliii in these two books (Ps 17) is 
entitled 'a prayer.' And in the whole Psalter 
only live (including Ps 17) are so described. 
TchitHm (praises), not tcjjhilloth (prayers), is the 
recognized name of the book; but the latter would 
be almost as accurate a title as the former. 
Prayer in the P.saliiis will be considered uniler 
six heads. (1) Prayer is regarded in the Psalms 
as thu pouring out of the Iicart, 42^ 62" 102 (title) 
142". Outside the Psalter, see 1 S 1"* and 7' coni- 
lared with La 2'". That which is poured out may 
e either the heart or its niusin" (-•;■, AV 'coni- 
jilaint'). In juayer the p.salniist does not so much 
go before God with hxed orderly petition, as 
simply to pour out his feelings and desires, what- 
ever they are, sweet or bitter, troubleil or peaceful. 
(2) As a consequence of this asi)ect, various moods 
are blended in pr.ayer. It passes from praise and 
commemoration to complaint, supplication, con- 
fession, despondency. Few psalms are entirely 
prayers in a strict sense. There is, however, 
another reason for the rapid transitions which 
occur. In some the moment of a felt answer 
to prayer is marked in the P.salin itself by transi- 
tion to praise. Here we have an approach to the 
colloqui' in jirayer noticed in the cases of Abraham, 
Moses, and Jeremiah. In 143' an answer is dis- 
tinctly ex])ected ; .again in C"'" it is received, as 
also in SI-'-'-''. For strongly m.'irkcd transitions see 
57""" 6!)™"". There is a sense that (Jod has heard, 
and that is equivalent to His granting the petition, 
cf. 1 Jn 5". Yet this answer sometimes fails, 
and psalms from which it is absent strike us p.s 
abnormal, e.g. Ps 8S. Here we come near what 
is frequent in Job, praj'er struggling in the dark- 
ness, without a reply. It is that 'shutting out' 
of prayer which is described in La 3*. (3) Mationdl 
and personnl pr.-ij'er, how far can they be distin- 
guished? .Some prjiyers in the Psalter are evi- 
dently national, e.;/. GO. 79. 80. But while 44 is 
no less evidently national, 'I' and 'me' occur in 
vv.' and ". Hence it is evident that the 1st pers. 
sing, is no proof that a psalm, e.g. 102, is personal. 
It may well be an expression of the complaint and 
needs of the nation. It may almost be said that 
the p.salniist never felt himself alone, but always 
connected his personal joys or griefs with those 
of the nation. Cheyne (OP 276) quotes a Rab- 
binic saying, ' In prayer a man should always unite 
himself with the community.' The question then 
will gcncr.illy be which of the two elements pre- 
dominati's, not which is exclusively present. (4) 
Material and externnl blessings are the principal 
tubjerts of priitjer in the Psftlms. Account must 
be taken, in considering this matter, of changes 
which have taken place in the meaning of words 
by the legitimate Hpiritualizing ellect of Christian 
use. 'Say unto my soul, 1 am thy salvation' 
(33') is a good instance of how a prayer for 
temporal deliverance has come to acquire the 
appearam^o of being a prayer for spiritual bless- 
ing. But although the Psalms are far more 

largely occuiiied with temjioral and material than 
with spiritual needs, yet there are distinctly 
spiritual topics of prayer which lill a consideralile 
place in them. These are: (a) Communion with 
Uod, prayer for the intercourse of prayer, as in 
63. (b) Forgiveness of sins, besougdit with the 
greatest earnestness in 51 for its own sake, but 
more frequently taking the form of prayer for 
that deliverance from sutt'cring and chastisement 
vhich was held to mark tlie forgiveness of sin 
(see art. SiM IN OT). (c) Ps ll'J stands on a 
dillerent footing. It contains much pr.aj'er for a 
knowledge of God's wUl. The pr.ajer for quicken- 
ing (' quicken ' occurs 11 times) seems distinctly to 
h.'ive a spiritual sense. The 'He' division, with 
its initial verbs in Hi]iliil, is almost entirely [irayer. 
The development of prayer in a spiritual direction 
has been carried some way in the Psalms, and 
prayer for external blessings has been cast in a 
loriu which will lend itself afterwards to spiritual 
interpretation. We must not, however, sujqiose 
that prayer of this kind dill'erenti.ates the P.salms 
from the prayers of all other religions. Prayer for 
spiritual and moral gifts is found elsewhere (Tjlor, 
Prim. Culture, vol. ii. pj). 373, 374). (5) V rgi ni:g 
of Prayer. There is a feeling that God must be 
induced to hear. This conies out in the anthro- 
pomorphic phrases which speak to Him as though 
He needed to be awakened, urged, or persuaded. 
We can scarcely suppose that this is, all of it, no 
more than a sacred irony. While NT put aside 
the thought of awakening Him, it retained that 
of pleading. On this subject see Ps 28' 44'-^, and 
in correction of these Ps 121 throughout. (6) 
Prayer of imprecation, for vengeance. This is 
botli frequent and urgent. It occurs in the highest 
strains of devotion, e.g. Ps 69--"^, as well as in 
psalms of a lower level, e.g. 59. It reaches its 
extreme point in 109. In this Psalm attempts 
have been made to explain it away, but here no 
separate dealing is possible with a concejition 
which enters into the tissue of so many p.salms. 
It is certainlj' remarkable that the phrase which 
above any expresses the absorption of^tlie p.salniist 
in prayer (' I am prayer,' 109*) should occur where 
it does. Various considerations maj' help us to bear 
with this feature, but one is sufficient here. The 
devout Israelite of that day believed deeply in 
God, was perhaps more closely conscious of llim 
than we are, and yet looked out on a world of 
treachery, cruelty, and lust. The vision which we 
have before us of a future retribution in another 
life was entirely shut out from him. If his sense 
of justii^e was not dead, how could he help crying 
out for some manifestation of Divine righteousness 
by way of retribution, even apart from human 
instinct for revenge? An inspiration which ran 
counter to such desires would have disturbed the 
veiy foundations of his faith, bee, further, art. 
Psalms, p. 160. 

Proverbs. — Only two points need be noticed : (1) 
Three passages in which the character of the 
person praying determines the accejitance of the 
prayer, 15"- -■" '28". This feeling, legitimate as it 
IB, and admitted in the formularies of to-day, 
would tend to grow into that mistaken view of 
the matter which is corrected in the parable of 
the Pharisee and the Publican. (2) Ine prayer 
of Agur (30'""), with its modest request for the 
middle state on account of the effect of riches and 
poverty on his relation with God. Cf. the ])rayer 
of .Socrates (Plato, Phadrus, sub Jin., and also 
Thoni. Aiiuinas, Summn, ii. 2, Ixxxiii. 5). 

Job. — The earlier part of the book is in the form 
of a dialogue between Job and his friends; but in 
fact, when his friends pause, it is often the case 
that Job, instead of answering them, turns away 
to God, and lets his address to Goi stand an 




an answer to them. Thus, much of the book 
is prayer. See chs. 6. 7. 9. 10. 13. 14. The 
boldest of these is 10. Though full of doubt, 
'•, and half-way to renouncing Uod, 
it is nevertheless prayer, 'fliese chapters are, in 
fact, prayer for what at times is the most ur;;ent 
of all needs, some explanation of pain and sutler- 
ing. It is prayer for wisdom. So, long afterwards, 
St. James, writing to who have fallen into 
manifohl trials, bids them ask wisdom from God, 
that they may understand the purpose of His 
discijiline (Ja 1-'°). 

To sum up, the axioms stated at the outset have 
heen al)uudantly justilied. It has plainly appeared 
that God hears and is mo\-ed by prayer, especially by 
persistent pleading prayer. Tliis was tlie convic- 
tion not only of the mass of the nation, but also 
of a large number of highly gifted persons. Their 
experience of prayer, as attested by their writings, 
must always constitute an important element in 
that portion of the evidences for the being of God 
whicli is drawn from human con.sciousness. In the 
s|)iritual sphere it corresponds to the testimony 
which St. John gives to God manifest in the flesh, 
1 Jn 1>-'. 

II. In the Apocrypha. — The Apocr. as a whole 
conlirms strongly what has been said as to the in- 
creased pronunence of praj'er after the Exile. The 
Apocr. books incorporate, or even consist of prayers. 
The -Additions to Esther are mainly two long 
prayers of Esther and Mordecai. See also Bar 
l''-3' ; the Prayer of Azarias (Abednego) prefixed 
to the Song of the Three Children ; and the 
Prayer of Manasses : the two narratives Tobit 
and Judith both attest the power of prayer. In 
Tobit tlie miraculous interpositions and the happy 
issue of the story are entirely the result of the 
simultaneous prayers of Tobit and Sarah recorded 
in To 3, see esp. 3'*. And tlie place given to 
prayer in an ideal Jewish family is shown by the 
paternal injunctions of To 4'^ The Book of Tobit, 
allhougli a fiction, engages respect and interest by 
its high moral tone ; but the same cannot be said 
of tlie Book of Judith, in which the prayer of the 
heroine is tainted with the treachery which is 
glorified throughout tlie book. Her prayer in Jth 
0'° is prayer for the success of deceit, and it would 
be hard to find anything baser in conception than 
her iiretended scheme of inquiring by prayer as to 
the sins of her countiymen, that she may tell 
Holofernes when to attack them, Jth 11"-". The 
necessity of washing, before prayer, for those 
living among the heathen appears in Jth 12'- *. 
In 1 Mac we pass from fiction to history. As 
Ezr-Neh showed prayer in men of action, so also 
1 Mac, e.(j. 4-"'"^ 5" and 11""'-, pr.ayer was the secret 
of tlie ^taccaba>an victories. That it was so, is 
nowliere better expressed than in 2 Mac Xo", 'con- 
tending witli their hands and praying unto God 
with their hearts.' The notice of Mizpeh in 1 Mac 
S'"' as an ancient place of prayer, links the prayer 
and victory of Judas with tliose of Samuel in 
former time, and is proof of the survix-ing holiness 
of the ancient sanctuaries. 2 Mac does but renew 
in legendary guise the evidence of 1 Mac as to the 
frequency of prayer in the great patriotic struggle. 
But it contains two passajjes which favoured, if 
they did not suggest, later developments in Chris- 
tian times. With 2 Mac 12^<'-« before them as 
canonical Scripture, it is no wonder that men 
thought they had ample justification for oti'ering 
sacrifice (in the Mass) on behalf of the dead. 
And the vision of Onias and Jeremiah (2 Mac 
15'-"") was a clear testimony to the intercession of 
saints on behalf of the living. Cf. also Bar S'' if 
the text be correct. 

Tlie sapiential books of the Apocr. should next be 
considered. The Book of Wisdom from 9' onward 

is a continuous address to God, and may be regarded 
as a praj'cr, though the character of sunplication 
is not clearly discernible beyond the end of cli. 9. 
But 16-''- ™ contains a beautiful illustration with 
regard to prayer. As manna had to be gathered 
at daybrealc, lest it should melt in the heat of the 
sun, so we must rise at daybreak to gather spiritual 
food by prayer. 

If the Book of Wisdom contributes little, Sirach 
compensates, as might be expected from the re- 
spective origin of the two books. It contains 
prayers, e.g. 22^-23* (personal) ; 36^'" (national); 
5Q22-'i4 partly thanksgiving, the source of Rinkart's 
famous hymn, 'Nun danket alle Gott.' Sir V'"' " 
28-"'' prepare the way for our Lord's teaching on 
prayer, and may have been present to His mind : 
38""" was certainly in St. James' mind when he 
wrote Ja 5""'^. Sir 38^ may perhaps be the source 
of tlie proverb, ' Laborare est orare.' Taking the 
book generally, it is remarkable that the principal 
subject of praj'er in Sirach is the forgiveness of 
sins, thus advancing the movement begun in OT 
to spiritualize the aims of prayer. 

One more book of Apocr. requires notice, an 
apocaly|)se, the so-callecf 2 Esdras. Though chs. 
3-14 inclusive are certainly post-Christian, and 
therefore do not, like the books hitherto con- 
sidered, illustrate inter - Testamental Jewish 
thought, there is much that is of great interest 
in them, and not least in regard to prayer. The 
question is raised in V'"--"!' (RV text) whether the 
intercession of prophets and leaders which had 
plaj'ed so great a part in the histoi"y of Israel will 
not also be availing in the day of judgment, and the 
answer is a twice-repeated negative. 

III. In the New Testament. — It will be con- 
venient to state at once the main points in which 
the doctrine of praj'er makes advance in NT. 
(1) Further development of prayer for spiritual 
blessings. It is the light here thrown on the 
possibilities of a higher life by the example and 
teaching of Christ which enlarges and raises the 
scope of prayer. (2) Extension of the guidance of 
the Holy Spirit to all believers, enables them for 
prayer. Power in prayer was a characteristic of 
the prophets in the OT, because they had the 
Spirit. Now aU can pray, because all have the 
Spirit. (3) Prayer in the name of Jesus. This ia 
absolutely new ( Jn 16-^). The verse just cited gives 
the turning-point in the history of prayer. It does 
not divert prayer from the Father to the Son, but 
gives new access to the Father. Thus the normal 
idea of prayer is to pray in the Spirit, through the 
Son, to the Father. 

NT words for ' prayer ' must be briefly noticed. 
1. Prayer to God witu implication of worship ia 
irpoaeiixeo^Sai- 2. eixeaSai. barely exceeds an earnest 
wish, and needs ir/iis rbv Bebv to give it the sense 
of prayer as in 2 Co 13'. Its subst. ei^x^ means a 
vow except in Ja 5'°. 3. Sio/xai, S^tjo-is, though used 
of supjilication to God even by our Lord Himself 
(Lk 2"2'-), may also be used of prayer to man {e.g. 
Lk 9^°), which is not the case with irpoaei'xcirffcLi. 
i. ahtiv, a simple word belonging to our childlike 
relation (Lk 11''), contains no thought of worship ; 
in RV always ' ask,' but disguised in AV by five 
difl'erent renderings, namely 'ask,' 'desire,' ' beg,' 
' crave,' 'require.' The mid. voice (alTclaOaC) gives 
intensity to the request (see Mayor on Ja 4'). S. 
ipoiT&u, usually explained as involving a certain 
freedom in the manner and form of request. 6. 
ivTvyxi-i'^tv^ virepevTvyxdvetv, tr. 'intercede,' though 
the sense is primarily to draw near the person 
addressed, and only secondarily on behalf of an- 
other. See below under ' Epistles.' 

i. Gospels. — The example and teaching of our 
Lord: (I) His personal example. His prayer was 
real prayer, not merely ofl'ered by way of example 




to dUiiples, but as real and intense as any ever 
uttLTud. Notliinj; brinj^s out His true liuinanity 
inoie tlian His deiiendence on tlie Katlier in prayer. 
His prayers may be considered under three heads : 
(a) At or bc/'ure the great events of Hit life on 
earth : at Baptism ( Lk 3'' ) ; before clioice of apostles 
(Lk 0'-- ") ; before translij,-uration, which is almost 
represented as tlie ellect of prayer (Lk O-"-*) ; 
before Getlisemane (Jn 17, the earlier verses of 
uhicli refer to the eonsuniinatioii of His own work) ; 
during' the a^'ony (Lk -Jiw-'-^, He 5'). It is to be 
observed that, for these notices, we are mainly 
indebted to St. Luke, and his special intere-st in 
our Lord's teaching; iis to prayer will appear under 
other heads also, {/i) Prai/cr b'fore performance of 
inirncle.i : implied in the case ot Lazarus, Jn U^'- ■*- ; 
probably implied MkT^'. Cf. -Mt 17-''(TK); but much 
more frequent in miracles wrouirlit by disciples. 
(7) Intercessory prayer: for disciples and future 
believers, Jn l""'^, and continued after ascension, 
Ro 8**, He 7^ (this continued intercession is not 
denied by Jn lG-°, which merely guards against the 
thought that our prayer is of itself unacceptable ; 
His heavenly intercession is but another aspect of 
our asking in Jesus' name) ; prayer for individuals : 
St. I'L-ter, Lk 22^- ; soldiers at the cross, Lk 23**. 
See -Monrad, World of Prayer, p. 72, Eng. tr. 

(2) The Lord's direct teaching in various ways. 
This may be considered under the following heads : 
(a) the Lord's Praver ; (^] parables; (7) incidental 
sayings ; (0) last discourses. 

(o) The Lord's Prayer. — There are grounds 
which appear to the present writer to be sulScient, 
but which cannot be stated here, for believing that 
the prayer was gi\cn on two occasions, and in two 
distinct forms. The latter circumstance would 
seem to show that stress was not laid on the 
icpetition of the e.\act words, but on the teaching 
which the prayer conveyed a.s to the topics, pro- 
portion, and order of all prayer. There is but one 
clause in the Lord's Prayer relating to temporal 
wants, and even that not merely to the wants of 
the individual (' give us'). ^loreover, it is capable 
of including spiritual needs, and is constantly so 
interpreted. On the other hand, it does legitimate 
praver for temporal wants. In this connexion 
notice the direction given Mt 24-". This tendency 
of the Lord's Prayer to fix desires on spiritual 
things is summed up in one of the agraplui quoted 
by Urigen, Hcl. in Ps 4* LXX (Lomm. xi. 4.32) and 
el-cwhere, and probably authentic, 'Ask the great 
things, and the little things shall be added to you ; 
ask the heavenly things, and the earthly things 
shall be aililed to you' (Resell, Aqrapha, Logion 
41 ). Another characteristic of the Lord's Prayer is 
its catholicity. There is nothing of particularism 
in it. It is already conscious of its world-wide 
destinj'. A merely Jewish iiraj'er of this date 
would certainly have been addressed to the Lord 
God of Israel 'of our fathers), and would have con- 
tained a pctilion for the nation. See Latham, 
Pastor Pastorum, p. 416. See, further, art. Lord's 

(/3) Parables. — (1) Two parables on importunity 
in prayer. This characteristic of prayer has 
already been taught by OT, and is hero approved 
by our Lord. The ' Friend at Midnight ' (Ui 1 1»-») 
follows immediately the delivery of the Lord's 
Prayer. While it should be interpreted in the 
broadest way of all prayer, it maj' have special 
application to teachers, as being a prayer for bread 
for others. The scconil parable, the Im]iortunate 
Widow (Lk 18'""), has throughout a special refer- 
ence to the prayer of sulleriiig believers in expecta- 
tion of the Second Advent. The need of im- 
portunity in player e.xjiressed in I)oth parables 
should be interpreted with Trench's words before 
us, ' We must not conceive of prayer as an over- 

coming of God's reluctance, but as a laving hold of 
His highest willingness' (Parables, xv'iii., tlie sub- 
.stance of which comes from the passage of Dante 
which he quotes, Parad. xx. 94-99). (2) A jiaralile 
on right disposition in prayer follows immediately 
in Lk IS*"'*. Compare above on Dt 2G'^"" under 
OT. In this parable we see a great step in ad- 
vance. Under the new covenant a profession of 
ritual righteousness has no longer any iilace in 
prayer. On the contrary, we have Lk 17'", which 
may, like the precept of forgiveness which it 
follows, have been spoken with refercnc-e to prayer 
and its conditions. It should be observed that 
these parables are jireserved by St. Luke alone, 
and to them may be added the prayer of the 
prodigal son, ' Father, I have sinned,' etc. (Lk 
I5I8. la,_ 

(7) Incidental sayinps. — (1) As to conditions of 
prayer. One of these is humility, as in the parable 
referred to above, Lk 18'*. Another is forgiveness 
of our brother men. This condition of prayer had 
already been strilcingly stated in Sir 28-"-'. Mt 
e'*-'" and Mk 11":» Jo but repeat it, and the 
[parable of the Unmerciful Servant grows out of 
the same root. A third condition of prayer is to 
avoid outward show and to avoid rcpctitioii. Our 
Lord's practice throws light on both these require- 
ments. W'e read of His retirement to the mountain 
for prayer. Privacy in a is ditiicult to obtain 
in tlie East. The other direction does not forbid 
all repetition. Words may be repeated to express 
urgent entreaty, as in Mt26*'. A fourth condition 
is more important and more difficult of explana- 
tion — that of faith. It is olmous that faith must 
be a condition ; a praj"er which is, so to sjieak, an 
exiieriment, will not be answered. But Mk 11-* 
'All things whatsoever ye pray and ask for, 
believe that ye have received them and ye shall 
have them,' seems to represent faith not merelj' 
as 'sine qua non,' but as 'cum qua semper.' 
Literally interpreted, the words would assign to 
every believer a kind of vicarious omnipotence. 
In interpretinjj any saying of our Lord, it must be 
remembered tliat the words as spoken by Him 
were not isolated, and were addressed to those 
who had lieartf other words which limited and 
explained them. It is reasonable to receive this 
saying >vith the explanation which St. John puts 
u|jou it, 1 Jn S'*- " (' if we ask anything according 
to his will, he heareth us'). The illustrations 
used to emphasize the power of prayer in faith, 
viz. the uprooting of mountains and trees, are 
taken from the language of the Jewish schools ; 
and the same source supplies a parallel expression, 
' If a person applies his whole attention during 
prayer, he may be sure that his prayer has been 
granted' (R. Samuel in Bcrakhoth, tr. p. 111). 
It is probable that our Lord, foreseeing that the 
power of prayer would be undervalued, preferred 
to state its force in this almost paradoxical way. 
It will follow that assurance of receiving the 
precise thing asked for is not what is re<iuired. 
There is a great instance in Ac 12 which may be 
taken here bj' anticipation. The Church is gathered 
together praying continuously and earnestly for 
the release ot St. Peter. But when he is released 
and sent back to them, they keep him outside the 
gate because they cannot believe that their i)rayer 
has been granted. Yet who will say that that 
praj'er was not a praj'er of faith? The con- 
dition of prayer to ue mentioned is not a universal 
one, but carries special promise, namely, the con 
dition of union in prayer, Mt IS"-**. It docs not 
necessarily imply public prayer, for two persons 
are enough. The ellect of this saying appears in 
the frequent mention of united praj-er in Acts. 

(5) discourses. — As in all other rcsiiecte 
these discourses give new and distinctive teacuiiig, 




so in respect of prayer. It is henceforth to be in 
Jesiix' muiw. 'Thus is fjiven not a mereilevotionul 
form, but a new yrouml on wliich the worsliipper 
stands, a new plea for the success of his petitiiins ; 
and, in fact, a wholly new character to [irayer, 
since it must be brou^'ht into unison with the 
mind of Him in whose name it is presented' (T. U. 
Bernard, Central Tenrhinf/ of Jcsic^ Christ, p. 156 ; 
and see preceding page). As this teaching' was 
not possible in the early days when the Lord's 
Prayer was given, 'in .Jesus' name' was not added 
to it. Hut that prajer being His, and in accord- 
ance with His will, is a prayer in His name, with- 
out the addition of 'through Jesus Christ,' which 
the Churcli has never presumed to make. This 
instance shows that the direction is not to be 
taken in a narrow, verbal way. 

(3) Finally, the Gospels aiiord us teaching on 
prayer given in an entirely' ditlcrent way. Under 
( 1 ) the Lord's example w;is considered on its human 
side, teaching about prayer bj- His own prayer. 
But even during His ministry the Divine nature, 
though in a certain sense hidden, began to show 
itself, and He is the recipient of prayer from those 
who need His help. Their recpiests are not de- 
scribed by the highest term irpojevxatiaL, but by 
5fo/iai, Si-qais. But since these requests were made 
to the Son of God, His way of dealing with them 
instructs all who pray, (a) Requests are granted 
where there is faith. ' Believe ye that I am able 
to do this?' (h) Granting requests is delayed to 
produce importunity and test character (^Ik 7^). 
A saj'ing of Seneca's well illustrates the difference 
between what the Stoic thought of the attitude of 
importunate prayer and the way in which Chris- 
tianity regards it : ' Nihil carius emitiir quam quM 
precibus emta est.' Christianity would substitute 
'nihil dulciu.s.' (c) Man's ignorance in prayer is 
insisted on in the case of the sons of Zebedee, 
Mt 'iO-- ; and it is shown by experience in the ease 
of St. Peter, whose request is granted that he may 
learn that it was presumptuous, Mt 14^"'', cf. Ko 
8-*. Here it may be added that the disciples who 
had asked Jesus dailj' and hourly for help and 
guidance while He was with them in the fiesli, 
evidently continued to do so after God had ' exalted 
him to lie a Prince and a Saviour.' St. Stephen 
says, ' Lord Jesus, receive my spirit ' ; and Chris- 
tians are described by St. Paulas those who ' call 
upon (or invoke in praver) the name of our Lord 
Jesus Christ,' 1 Co 1^ cf. Ac 9" -2.1'^. It is there- 
fore going too far to say with Origen (rfe Orat. 
15) that all prayer must be ollered to the Father. 
Yet it is the case that Jesus teaches His disciples 
to pray, not to Himself, but to the Father in His 
name. Liddon (Bampton Lectures, note F) appears 
to press his argument further than a consideration 
of the whole evidence will justify. 

ii. Acts. — The teaching and guidance given by 
our Lord manifests its results in the Acts and 
Epistles. Acts will show its external results in 
the Church as a whole, not, however, without 
some evidence of private practice. The Epp. will 
give its inward ellect on the devotional life of 
individuals, esjiecially of St. Paul, but here also 
something may be gathered as to external and 
corporate usages. 

(1) Acts supplies notices of times and places of 
prayer. St. Peter observes the sixth hour (Ac 
10*), and he and St. .John go up to the temple at 
the ninth hour, which is described as the hour of 
prayer (Ac 3'). It is probable that the g'atherinjj 
described in Ac 2' was for worship, and this is fixed 
by 2" as having taken place at the third hour, so 
we have recognition of all the three Jewish hours 
of prayer. 

In tlie matter of prayer, as in most other exter- 
nal matters, the Christian body remained at first 

they were only a new sect (ai'peiris) of Judaism. 
They had their private worship (Ac "i*-), but they 
did not on that account forsake the temple ; and 
it is possible that they still attended the syna- 
gogues, though there is no evidence on this point 
beyond the practice of St. Paul on his missionary 
journej's (in which case he had a special object in 
view), and J a 2^ (where 'synagogue' may mean a 
distinctively Christian assembly, cf. He lO'-^). But 
with reganl to the private worship of Christians, 
there is ample evidence in Acts, e.g. i'^-^ where the 
actual prayer used is recorded, and 12'- the 
assembly for prayer in the house of Marj- the 
mother of Mark. Two farewell prayers from St. 
Paul's life may be added — the one at Miletus with 
tears and embraces (Ac 20^*), the other on the 
beach at Tyre (Ac 21°). In both these cases they 
knelt in prayer. Kneeling is also the attitude of 
St. Stephen (Ac 7*), St. Peter (Ac G"), and St. 
Paul (Eph S"). On (he other hand, our Lord's 
words had authorized standing to pray (Mk ll'-^). 

(2) Fulfilment of prayer. — Acts is remarkably 
strong in its testimony on this point. There are : 
the release of St. Peter (Ac 12), the sending of St. 
Peter to Cornelius (10'), the preservation of the 
crew and passengers who sailed with St. Paul 
(27-*). And there are the cases in which prayer is 
recorded as the means of working miracles (9" 28'). 
Passing to the Epp. we may take here the great 
instance of non-fullilment of believing prayer, the 
thrice-repeated prayer of St. Paul to be delivered 
from the thorn in the flesh (2 Co 12'*- "). Yet the 
prayer was not frustrate ; what was granted waa 
the power to rejoice in the infirmity. 

(3) Prayer in connexion loith laying on of hands. 
— In Acts there are mentioned three more or less 
distinct uses of the laying on of hands : (o) in heal- 
ing as by Ananias (9"), St. Paul (28») ; (,3) as a 
complement to baptism by St. Peter and St. John 
at Samaria (8") and St. Paul at Ephesus (19«); 
(7) on appointment to ministries (6' 13'). Now in 
each of these three classes of instances, though not 
in every instance, there is a distinct mention of 
praj-er, as though to show that those who use the 
form are not in possession of the gift so as to 
transfer it at their will, but rather have authority to 
ask for it to be given. See, further, art. Laying 
o>f OF Hands. 

(4) The passages in which prayer accompanies the 
appointment to ministries naturally raise another 
question. In Ac 13^ 14^ fasting accompanies 
praj-er, cf. Lk 2". The connexion between fasting 
and prayer has already been observed in OT, but 
was It continued in the Apostolic Church ? These 
two passages "o in that direction, and it would be 
natural that tlie Christians should not abandon a 
practice in which as Jews they had been trained, 
and which appeared to have a possible sanction 
from Mt 9". But, in considering fastin" as sub- 
sidiary to prayer, it should be observed that in 
four passages where it appears in that light in AV, 
viz. Mt 17-", Mk 9-'», Ac 1(1™, 1 Co 7», RV, follo\ying 
textual evidence, omits all mention of the subject. 
See, further, art. FASTING. 

(5) One other point of interest from Acts is that 
prayer here bears out what was said under OT of 
prayer as colloquy tenth God. Such is the prayer 
in 1;he visions of Ananias (Ac 9'>-'») and St. Paul 
(Ac 22"-»'). 

iii. The Epistles and Apocalypse. — (1) St. Janus. 
— This Ep. takes up and applies to daily life the 
teaching of the gospel, and is especially related to 
Mt. Hence there is much as to prayer. The need 
of faith in prayer, and the fatal eB'ect of doubting 
( Ja I*'*, observe same word [diaKpivo/uit] for ' doubt 
as in Mt 21^') ; the neglect of prayer, and character 
of wTong prayer ( Ja 4'- '), are put in a practical way. 




Hilt tlie must important passage is Ja 5""". There 
in an empliatic positiun almost at the close of 
the Kpistle we have the reeommendution of a 
partitMilar act of prayer on the part of the elders of 
the congelation, accompanied with the use of oil 
(in accordance with the early apostolic practice 
described Mk 6'"). This prayer is not only to 
efl'cct hodily but also sjuritual healing. The 
suHerers sins will be forgiven. And then the 
jiower of praver is still furtlier urged, and the 
e.vample ol Elijah given. Intercession for one 
another is to be the rule of the Church (cf. 1 Jn 5"'). 
(•2) E/>ji. of St. Paul. — Only a few points can be 
noticed, (a) The co-opcratioii of the Hull/ S/iirit in 
praver conies out clearly. In Ro 8'' the Sjiirit 
enaldes us to cry 'Abba, Father,' and in v.-" inlcr- 
cedes for us (i;irepe>'Tii7xa>'ei) along with our <le- 
fective praj'ers. There is a special litncss in the of 4i'Tvyx<i>'u (and its compound) with rcg.ird to 
the Spirit (as here) and the Son (v." and He 7-°), 
as it signilies approach. For the help of 
the Spirit in prayer .see also Eph 6'* and Juite-'"'. 
Further, the gift of tongues was used in prayer as 
well as in praise (I Co U"- "). The distinction 
which St. I'aul here draws l)etwcen the otlice of 
his (own) siiirit and his niind in prayer is well 
illustrated by Thorn. Aquiii. ii. 2. l.\.\xiii., who 
says that prayer is 'ratioiiis actus.' There must 
be some arrangement of petitions (ordinatio), ivnd 
for this the mind mu>.t take part. (^) The re- 
ciprocal prayer of SI. Paul and hit concerts. He 
con.stantiy [nays for them, he tells them so, and 
tiiey pray for him. His prayer for them i.s .some- 
times in an.xiety and somelimos with joy (I'h l'). 
It included mention of peiMins by name, e.g. 
Timothy and Philemon, and no doubt countless 
others. He looks on this reciprocal prayer as a 
bond. He begins and often closes his I'-pj). with 
mention of it. He regards the circumstances of 
his own life and his movements as in part de- 
termined by the prayers of the saints (2 Co 1", 
I'hilem '"). (7) I'raj'er is stricinq, an 07011' (like 
Jacob's wrestling), see Ro 15*, Col 2' and 4'". (0) 
Some light is given as to the iiraj'ers of the conijre- 
gatiim. There is the injunction in 1 Ti 2', where 
we hrid the rudiments of a li.xcd order of prayer. 
Clem. Kom. 01 shows how this command was 
obeyed. The chapter above <iuoted, 1 Ti 2, gives 
negatively in v." the same conditions of acceptable 
prayer 'without wrath and doubting' as are given 
positively in Mk U'-^, where forgiveness and faith 
are required for prayer. 'Wrath' here means 
rcfu.sal to forgive; such a condition condemns a 
literal use of the Imprecatory I'salm.s. («) In tlie 
I'astoral Ejip. prayer has already become the special 
dull) of a certain class (I Ti 5°). 

(3) Ep. to Hebrews. — Tlie great le.sson here is 
freedom of access to God in prayer. This Christ 
has obtained for us (He 4" 10-"). The latter verse 
reminds us that the baptized no longer need the 
ritual wa-shiiig of their bodies before prayer (see 
above on prayer in Apocrypha). 

(4) E/ip. of St. Jn/in. — Ilere again is the same 
thought as in He 4'°, expressed by the same word 
{irapf/ri<ri(i). I'ut in 1 Jn there is no question of 
entrance and approach (fr<rooo5, vpoaipx^cOai) ; we 
are already near. Thus irafip-qiria has more dis- 
tinctly its primary sense of ' freedom of utterance' 
in prayer. See 1 Jn 3-'---, where the jimmi^cs of 
the certain fullilmcnt of prayer given 111 Jn 14''-" 
15'- '° lU-"- " are concentrated and dwelt upon. The 
still stronger repetition of this assurance in 1 Jn 
5U. IB e.xplains any dilliculty that might attach to 
it, by substituting 'according to His will' for 
'in His name.' These two comlitions are really 
equivalent. We cannot truly associate ourselves 
with Christ in prayer (in His name) without Uia 
spirit of entire subniission to the Father's will. 

(5) The Apocalypse. — Here the prayer for ven- 
geance (Rev 6'°) is an echo of Lk IS'"", but it is the 
jirayer of the dead (ef. Bar 'i*). In Rev 5" and 8' 
the prayers of the saints are ottered to God, but 
this is tlie prayer of the living which ascends from 
the earth. Tliis prayer is mediated, being ottered 
in one case by the elders, and in the other having 
incense added to it by angels. For this idea 
(common among the Jews) cf. To 12'^- ". The pas- 
sages in Revelation are clearly symbolical, aiuf do 
not warrant man in addressing angels for such a jiur- 
pose. The mistranslation of Vulg. (Job 5') luob- 
ably encouraged the error. For the connexion of 
prayers and incense see above, p. 39''. Lastly, the 
Apocalj'iise ends with a prayer from the highest 
level of Christian faith and hope befitting the place 
assigned to it at the end of the Canon. It is a 
tlireefold prayer. It is tlie prayer of the S[)irit, 
which animates all faithful prayer under the NT 
(22"). It is the prayer ot tlie Bride, i.e. the 
Church (ib.). It is also the prayer of the indi- 
vidual, the WTitcr of the book (22-"). All other 
prayer resolves itself at into prayer for the 
coming of the Lord Jesus, which will accomplish 
all desires. 

LiTi!R.\TCRK.— JeruB. TaXamA, Daakhoth, tr. Schwab ; OriRen, 

de OratUmc LWeltta ; the artt. in Herzog on 'Gebet,' 'Gebct 
bei den Hebruern ' ; Bp. Monrad, Warld 0/ Prayer, tr. Banks. 
The staiid.ird wortts on Biblical Theolo<;y, e.g. Ochler, Schultz, 
Beysrhla^, liave ver.v scant}' references to Prayer. .Modern 
works on the efficacy of Prayer are not mentioned, beinj; out- 
side the scope o( the present article. E. R. BERNAKD, 

(Prayeii of). 

PREACHER.— See Ecclesiastes. 

PREACHING (Heb. .w-1,7, Jon 3=, from K-Jij'cry 
out,' 'proclaim'; Or. idipvyii-a, 'the message pro- 
claimed,' from Krjpvaaoi, 'declare as a herald,' 
'preach'; in NT used in marked distinction 
from oiSaxi), 'teaching,' and iiSivKw, • teach,' and 
always preserving in some degree the idea of the 
root-word n-fipvi, ' herald '). — Strictly speaking, 
Christian preaching is the proclamation of the 
gospel, which is to be followed by the more elaborate 
but less startling process of teaching. This limita- 
tion is observable in the NT accounts of our Lord's 
ministry where He first apjiears preaching, i.e. 
proclaiming the advent of the kingdom of God {e.g. 
ftit 4"), following on the preaching of John the 
Baptist {e.g. Mt3'-'), and then proceeds to teach 
the nature and laws of the kingdom (e.g. Mt 5'). 
The word ivayyM^a is frequently used for Chris- 
tian preaching, as the declaration of glad tidings 
{e.g. Lk 3'»). But although the NT words rendered 
'preaching' have this limitation of meaning, it 
would be undesirable to confine the consideration 
of the subject of preaching to the cases in which 
they are strictly applicable, that subject, as we now 
understand it, including all instruction in religion 
which takes the form of iiopular discourse, ami 
esiiecially that which is associated with public 

i. Jewi.iii Preaciiino.— Of the two streams of 
religious life and practice that are seen in the 
history of Israel — the priestly and the prophetic — 
preaching attaches itself to the latter. The 
sumptuous pageantry of the sacrifices spoke to the 
eye and taught by (Iramatic representation. The 
prophet was empliatically the preacher. In the 
earlier periods, indeed, his teaching is usually by 
means of the brief oracle. But the great 8tli 
cent, prophets composed and delivered elaborate 
discourses. They were preachers before they were 
writers, falling uack on the ]ien only when the 
living voice was silenced : in the case of Jeremiah, 
for the preservation of the wamint^s which his 




contemporaries refused to Iiear (Jer 30-) ; in the 
c.iso of Ezekiel, because the circumstances of the 
Kxile compelled the prophet to resort to literary 
channels tor making his message known. Still 
even Ezekiel's prophecies may have been originally 
spoken (see Smend, Der Prophet Ezerhiel, xxii.). 
t)n the other hand, Ewald held that Ezekiel wrote 
his oracles instead of speaking them because he 
felt a decay of the prophetic spirit (Prophets of the 
OT, iv. 2, 9). For the most part, at all events, the 
projihecies contained in OT are written discourses 
which had been preached or which were intended 
for preaching. Still there are two important 
did'erences between this preaching of the prophets 
and what we understand by the term to-day. (1) 
The jjreaching of the prophets was not a normal 
function of public worship taking its place in the 
ritual of the sanctuary. It was an utterance 
demanded by special crises, or prompted by a 
special revelation, and spoken in tlie court or the 
market-place, wherever the prophet could find the 
audience he was urged to address. (2) For the 
most part it dealt with public questions, national 
sins, judgments, and deliverances, rather than 
■n-ith individual conduct and need (see W. R. 
Smith, Prophets of Israel, Lect. II.). In Ezekiel, 
on the other hand, more personal preaching 
appears (see Comill, Der Propliet Ezcchiel, pp. 51, 

For a closer approach to what is commonly 
understood as preaching, we must come to the 
period of the return from the Captivity. The law 
is now the centre of the religion of Israel, and the 
law is now popularized in public teaching. The 
very meaning of tlie word rendered law (n-iin in- 
struction) points in this direction. Accordingly, 
the Divine instruction given through priests or 
prophets at an earlier period is called by the same 
name (Hos 4*, Am 2* [see Driver's note]). With 
the rise of the synagogue, preaching becomes a 
recognized function of public worship. The need 
of translating the Heb. text into the vernacular 
introduced the interpreter, who followed the reader 
sentence by sentence in the case of the law, but 
with a division into longer passages with the 
prophets (Schiirer, HJP II. ii. SI ; Megilla, iv. 4, 
6, 10). The Targum thus originated prepared for 
the more lengthy exposition. WhUe the Halaeha 
is didactic and suited to the schools, the Haggada 
contains the le"ends and allegories which would be 
more acceptable to the popular audience in the 
synagogue service. In tlie time of Philo the 
popular discourse was the chief part of the service 
(see Schiirer, II. ii. 76). There was no one appointed 
preacher. According to Philo, ' some (ns) priest 
who is present (6 wapiiv), or some one of the elders, 
reads the sacred laws to them, and expounds 
[iiriycnai) each of them separately till eventide' 
(Fragm. in Euseb. Prcep. Evang. viii. 7). Indeed 
we learn from the same authority that any com- 
petent person ( rtj tCiv (ixireipoTdTuv) could 
take this part of the service (de Septcntario, 
c. 6, Mang. ii. 282). From the latter passage it 
would seem that the preacher stood up to speak, 
the word ivaardt being used. But possibly Philo 
is thinking only of his act of rising to present him- 
self before the people and offer his discourse. In 
delivering his sermon the preacher was seated in 
an elevated place (Lk 4'-'" ; Zunz, Die goltcsdienst- 
liclten Vortriigc, p. 337 ; Delitzsch, 'Ein Tag in 
Cajtemaum, p. 127 f.). 

II. Christian Prkaching.— John the Baptist 
was acknowledged as a prophet, and he revived 
the prophet's mission of preaching to the people 
apart from the normal religious services. His 
work consisted chiefly in preaching and baptizing, 
though with tlie necessary a<ldition of private con- 
tersation with inquirers (Lk 3'"""). The burden 

of his message was the call to repentance, and the 
announcement of the ajjproach of tlie kingdom of 
God, with a promise of the forgiveness of sins 
(Mt 3', Mk 1*). This was the burden of the earlier 
preaching of Jesus (Mk I"-"). This earlier 
preaching of our Lord was carried on in the syna- 
gogues of Galilee ("SVk 1^). The incident in the 
Nazareth synagogue of which we have a full 
account, indicates that our Lord's method was to 
found His discourse on the portion of Scri|iture 
He had previously read (Lk 4"*'). This would be 
in accordance with the custom at the Sabballi 
meeting. When He preached in the open air it 
was under freer circumstances. Then, though He 
would frequently appeal to the OT in continuation 
of His words, and especially in arguing with the 
scribes in the form of an argiiincnfiim ad homines. 
He did not adopt the method of the exposition of 
Scripture ; He would start immediately from His 
great topic ' the kingdom of God,' and expound 
that. The evangelists are careful to point out the 
transition from this public teaching to the private 
training of the inner circle of disciples. His 
method was not the same in the two cases. It 
cannot be said that He had any esoteric doctrine 
which He deliberately withheld from the uniniti- 
ated, although His language on one occasion 
seemed to indicate this (Mk 4"''-), because He 
always invited all capable hearers (e.g. Mk 4"- -■ •^). 
The public discourse more often took the form of 
parable ; the private instruction was more direct and 
conversational. But even when delivering a public 
discourse Jesus was always liable to interruption, 
and this would frequently develop into discussion. 
Moreover, the reports of our Lord's discourses 
preserved in the Gospels appear to be abbreviated 
in some cases, or perhaps we have salient points, 
memorable epigrams, etc., selected from His 
discourses rather than full reports of them. 
Sometimes, as in the case of the Sermon on the 
Mount, it may be that we have a number of the 
sayings of Jesus uttered on various occasions col- 
lected and strung together by the reporter (perhaps 
Matthew in his Login ; see Matthew). In Lk 
we more often meet with utterances springing out 
of incidents, the event and the saying being both 
given by the third evangelist. For these reasons 
we cannot look to the Gospel accounts of the teach- 
ings of Jesus to furnish us with typical sermons. 
Still those accounts not only contain the teachings 
themselves, they illustrate our Lords method of 
preaching — (1) His freshness and originality (SiSaxi; 
Kaii/ri, Mk 1^) ; (2) His tone of authority (cjs ^ioviriap 
Ix^", ^Ik 1~) ; (3) His winning grace — a point 
characteristically noted by the third evangelist 
{i6avfj,al^ot> iwl toTs XlryOiS ttj^ x''P"'°'> Lk 4^*^) ; (4) His 
graphic picturesqueness in illustration (Mk 4**). 

The Book of Acts siipplies several specimens of 
apostolic preaching. In the earliest instances the 
text and starting-point are found in some event, 
e.g. the 'tongues' at Pentecost (Ac 2"'-). the heal- 
ing of the lame man at the gate of the tenijile 
(Ac 3'-'-). The OT is appealed to for the confirma- 
tion of what is said [e.g. Ac 2'*- ^- »* 7« 8^-). With 
his man'ellous versatility St. Paul employed the 
same method when speaking to pagans at Athens, 
illustrating his words by a citation from classic 
literature (Ac 17^), though personally he attached 
unique im])ortance to the inspiration of the OT, 
and cited tliis to Jews in the manner of the other 
apostles {e.g. Ac 13^''- " 15"). In substance the 
preaching of the apostles to Jews was a declaration 
of the Messiahship of Jesus with the confirmation 
of two arguments — (1) The resurrection ; (2) the 
OT predictions. On this followed promises of 
the forgiveness of sins {e.g. Ac 2^ 3'"), and salvation 
through Christ {e.g. 4'-). The essential genuine- 
ness of the early speeches in Acts is prjved by tlie 




fiut tliat they do not contain tlie Pauline doctrine 
of the Atonement, which was not develupeil at the 
time in which they aie dated (Lechler, Apust. and Times, i. 2G0 f. ). Tliey refer to the 
death of Christ, cliarging the Jews with the crime, 
pointing out tliat it was predicted by tlie jiropliets, 
and therelore was foreknown by God and in His 
counsels, and sliowin;; that in spite of it tlie 
resurrection proved Jesus to be Christ. The 
a|)osti>lic preaching' to the heathen, represented 
especially by St. Paul, exposes the absurdity of 
anthropomorphic polytheism (eg". Ac 14'^), idolatry 
(l?-^), and sorcery (19''-'); declares the spirituality 
anil fatherhood of God (17^'"); denounces sin, 
and warns of judj,'ment to come through one 
whom Ciod has aiipointcd (17"); oilers deliver- 
ance throujrh faith in Jesus Christ (l&'). The 
allusions to the delinite preachinj; of Jesus Christ 
are very brief. But it is evident that there must 
have been some accoiint of His life, death, and 
resurrection in St. PauKs preaching. Gal 3' plainly 
points to this. Similarly, if the second Gospel is 
St. .Mark's record of ' the preaching of Peter,' it is 
plain that that apostle preached the facts of the 
life of Jesus. 

In the churches of NT times great freedom of 
utterance was allowed. The rij;ht to preach 
depended on jrffts, not on ollices. At Corinth, in 
particular, the gift of prophecy, to which St. Paul 
assigns the (inst place (1 Co 14'), was found among 
the private members, and wa,s freely e.\ercised in 
the assembly (v.^'). Nevertheless, tlie duty of ad- 
monishing the iusserably rests especially with tlie 
leading authorities (e.g. 1 Th 5'-). The chief 
functions of the elders or bishops was, not preach- 
ing, but the administration ot practical afl'airs. 
But aLility to teach is recognized, at all events, by 
the time of the Pastoral Kpistles as the one neces- 
sary qualihcation of a bishop (1 Ti 3-) which is not 
also shared by the deacon. In course of time it 
was considered improjicr for a presbyter to preach 
in the presence of the bishop, universally so in the 
West (Possid. Vit. S. Aug. v.; Cone. Hisp. ii. (A.D. 
619) can. 7), but not universally in the East, only 
»7i rjuibusUam ecclesiis (Jerome, ad Kcpot. Epist. 2). 

W. F. Adeney. 


L TliL- 'J'c-rnis. 
U. I'reilc-Unalion in OT. 

1. l-'uinLiinental OT idens. 

2. CoHinical Predestination in OT. 

3. Soteriolo^^ical Predestination in OT, 
liL Predestination among tiie Jews. 

It. Predestination in NT. 

1. The Tearhing of Jesus. 

2. The TeadiinK of the Disciples. 
.1. Tlie Teathinu of St. Paul. 

V. Tlie liiblo Doctrine ot Predestination. 

i. TllF, TiciiM.s.— The words 'predestine,' 'pre- 
destinate,' ' predestination ' seem not to have 
been domiciled in English literary use until 
the later period of .Middle English (they are all 
three found in Chaucer : Truylus and Crijseyde, 
906 ; Orisnune to the Holif Virgin, 69 ; tr. of 
Boethiiis, b. 1, pr. 6, 1. 3844 ; the Old English 
efjiiivalent seems to have been ' forestihtian,' as in 
yhlfric's Homilies, ii. 304, 366, in renderings of 
Ro I'' S'"'). 'Predestine,' 'predestination' were 
doubtless taken over from the French, while 'pre- 
destinate' probably owes its form directly to the 
Latin original of them all. The noun has never 
had a place in the English Bible, but the verb in 
the form ' preilestinato' occurs in everyone of its 
issues from Tindale to AV. Its history in the 
English versions is a somewhat curious one. It 
goes back, of course, ultimately to the Latin 
' prtrdes/ino ' (a good cla.ssical but not pre-Augustan 
word; while the noun ' prrr.destinatio' seems to 
be of Patristic origin), which was adopted by the 

Vulgate as its regular rendering of the Gr. wpooplfu, 
and occurs, with the sole cxcejition of Ac 4'^(Vulg. 
dccerno), wherever the Latin translators found 
that verb in their te.'Jt (Ko I* 8^- ™, 1 Co 2', Eph 
!'• "). But the Wyclilite versions did not carry 
\ predestinate ' over into English in a single 
instance, but rendered in every case by ' before 
ordain ' (Ac 4^ ' deemed '). It was thus left to 
Tindale to give the word a jilace in the English 
Bible. This he did, however, in onl}' one passage, 
Ejih 1", doubtless under the inlluence of the 
Vulgate. His ordinary rendering of irpoopi^w is 
'ordain before' (Uo 8-', Eph P ; cf. 1 Co 2', where 
the ' before ' is omitted apparently only on account 
of the succeeding preposition into which it may be 
thought, therefore, to coalesce), varied in Ko 8'" to 
'appoint before'; while, reverting to the (Jreek, 
he has 'determined before' at Ac 4-" and, follow- 
ing the better reading, has 'declared' at Ko I^ 
The succeeding Eng. versions follow Tindale very 
closel}', thougli the Genevan omits ' before ' in 
Ac 4^ and, doubtless in order to as.similate it to 
the neighbouring Eph 1", reads ' did predestinate' 
in I'.pli 1'. The larger use of the word was due 
to the Ehemish version, which naturally reverts to 
the Vulg. and reproduces its prwdesi ino regulaily 
in 'predestinate' (Ko 1* 8=»- *, 1 Co 2', Eph P- " ; 
but Ac 4-* 'decreed'). Under this inlluence the 
A V adopted ' predestinate ' as its ordinary render- 
ing of irpooplfw (Ko S-"'-^», Eph P-"), while con- 
tinuing to follow Tindale at Ac 4^ 'determined 
before,' 1 Co 2' ' ordained,' as well as at Ko 1' 
' declared,' m. ' Gr. determined.' Thus the word, 
tentatively introduced into a single passage by 
Tindale, seemed to have intrenched itself as the 
stated English representative of an important 
Greek term. The KV has, however, dismissed 
it altogether from the English Bible and adopted 
in its stead the hybrid compound ' foreordained ' 
(cf. art. Foreknow, Foreohdain) as its invariable 
representative of Tpoopl^a (Ac 4^, Ko 8-"- **, 1 Co 2', 
Eph P- "),— in this recurring substantially to the 
language of Wyclif and the preferred rendering of 
Tindale. None other than a literary interest, 
however, can attach to the change thus intro- 
duced : ' foreordain ' and ' predestinate ' are exact 
sj'nonyms, the choice between which can be deter- 
mined only by taste. The somewhat widespread 
notion that the 17th cent, theology distinguished 
between them, rests on a misapprehension of the 
evidently carefully-adjusted usage of them in the 
Westminster Confession, iii. 311'. This is not, 
however, the result of the attribution to the one 
word of a ' stronger ' or to the other of a ' harsher ' 
sense than that borne by its fellow, but a 
simple sequence of a current employment of ' pre- 
destination ' as the precise sj'nonyra of ' election,' 
and a resultant hesitation to apply a term of such 
precious associations to the foreordination to 
death. Since then the tables have been quite 
turned, and it is questionable whether in popular 
speech the word ' predestinate ' does not now bear 
an unpleasant suggestion. 

That neither word occurs in the English OT is 
due to the genius of the Hebrew language, which 
does not admit of such compound terms. Their 
place is taken in the OT, therefore, by simple 
words expressive of purposing, determining, 
ordaining, with more or less contextual indication 
of previuusnoss of action. These represent a 
variety of Hebrew words, the most explicit of 
which is perhaps -i»; (Ps 139'", Is 22" 37''" 46"), by 
the side of which must be placed, however, ri;' (Is 
14-'- •■"■■-'' 19" 19" 23", Jer 49-" 50"), whose sub- 
stantival derivative njv (Job 38- 42», Jer 23'», Pr 
19-', Ps33" 107", Is H-^--" 46'"-", Ps lOO'", Is 5" 
19", Jer 49«' 50", Mic 4'=) is doubtless the most 
precise lleb. term for the Divine plan or purpose. 




altliough tliere occurs alon<; with it in mucli the 
same s«nsc the term n;vq: (Is 18" 29" 49'" f)0« (io», 
.ler 51-'", Mic 4'-, I's 9-"),' a derivative of 3¥'n (Gn 
50'*, Mic 2-', Jer 18" 'ifi' 29" 30^ 49'^" SO", La 2»). 
In the Araiiiaif portion of Daniel (4'"''**) tlie com- 
mon hiter IIel>rewdesi^'nation of the Divine decree 
(used especially in an evil sense) n-iu occurs : and 
pT is occasionally used with mucli the same mean- 
in-,' (Ps 2\ Zeph 2-, I's 105'<'=1 Cli 16", Job 23'^). 
Otiier words of similar import are n-} (Jer 4-" 51''-', 
I-a 7'", Zee 1« S"- '=) with its substantive .t:-d (Job 
42-, Jer 23-'» 30" 51"); pn (Vs I15» I35\ Pr 21', 
Is 55", Jon 1» Jg 132=', La 2'^, Is 53"') with its 
substantive r^n (Is 4G'" 44^ 48" 53'") ; \--<n (Job 14», 
Is lu--- -» 28--, bn 9-"- '-'' \l^) ; ^nn (Dn 9^) ; S'xV-i (1 S 
12--, 1 Cli IT-"', 2 S 1^). To express that special 
act of i)redestination which we know as ' election,' 
the Hebrews commonU" utilized the word "irs (of 
Israel, Dt 4" 7«- ' 10" 14-, Is 418-9 4310. 20 441. 2 454^ 
Jer 33-J ; and. of the future, Is 14' 65'- "• ^ ; of 
Jehovah's servant, 42' 49' ; of Jerusalem, Dt 

JOH. IS. 26 1425 1520 1Q7. 15. 16 178. 10 Jge SJll^ J^g gW 

1 K S'^- « 11"- »-»» 1421, 2 K 21' 25-'') with its sub- 
stantive I'n: (exclusively used of Jehovah's 
' elect,' 2 S 21^ 1 Ch 1G'^ Ps Sy 105«- « 106'- ^, 
Is 42' 43'-" 45^ 65'- '^- '-"), and occasionally the word 
I'l; in a pregnant sense (Gn 18'^ Am 3-, Hos 13', 
cf. Ps 1" 31' 37'8, Is 5S', Neb 1') ; while it is 
rather the execution of this previous choice in an 
act of separation tliat is expressed by ^"12.-1 (Lv 20'-" 
20=«, 1 K S'S). 

In the Greek of the NT the precise term Trpoopffoi 
(Ac 42», 1 Co 2', Ro 8'-»-*', Eph I'-") is supple- 
mented by a number of similar compounds, such 
as wpoTiaao) (Ac 17-^) ; irpoTt8T)ij.i (Eph 1*) with its 
more frequently occurring substantive, irpbdeun 
(Ko 8^ 9", Eph 1" 3", 2Ti P) ; irpoiTOLiia^u) (Ro 9^, 
El)Ii 2'") and perhaps Trpo,3\(Tnii in a similar sense of 
providential pie-arrangement (He 11^"), with which 
may be comjiared also irpoerSo;/ (Ac 2**, Gal 3^) ; 
wpoyL-yfucrKa (I!o 8°' 11", 1 P 1-") and its substantive 
irpj-yi-wo-it (1 P 1-, Ac 2-') ; Trpoxfipifw (Ac 22'^ 3-*) 
and wpoxe'poToviw (Ac 4'"). Something of the same 
idea is, moreover, also occasionally expressed by 
the simple opifa, (Lk 22--, Ac 17-"- *' 2^, He 4', Ac 
lO-"-'), or through the medium of terms designating 
the will, wish, or good-pleasure of God, such as 
/SouXtj (Lk 7*', Ac 2=^ 4-'8 13^" 20-'', Eph 1", He 6", 
cf. ^ov\riij.a Ro 9'9 and ^o<)\o/xai He 6", Ja l'*, 

2 P 3"), ei\-n,M [e.g. Eph 1'- »• ", He 10', cf. e^\r,cris 
He 2^, «\u, e.g. Ro 9'^---), cOdoda (Lk 2'*, Eph 
l»-9, Ph 2", cf. (uooK^a Lk 12^=, Col l'». Gal 1", 
1 Co l^i). The standing terms in the NT for God's 
.sovereign choice of His people are iK\(yeu6ai, in 
which both the coni])os. and voice are significant 
(Kph 1', Mk 13-\ Jn l-,'8'8-i9, 1 Co I-''--'', Ja 
2' : of Israel, Ac 1.3" ; of Christ, Lk 9»' ; of the 
disciples, Lk 6", Jn 6'» 13'^, Ac 1- ; of others, 
Ac 1" 15'), A-Xe<tT6s (Mt [20"] 22'* SG**- =*■ ", 
Mk 13=»- -■■ ■-■', Lk 18', Ro 8^, Col 3'^ 2 Ti 2'», 
Tit 1', 1 P 1' [2-'], Rev 17" ; of individuals, Ro 
16'^ 2 Jn '■ '» ; of Christ, Lk 23», Jn 13'» ; of 
angi'ls, 1 Ti 5-'), fWoyi', (Ac 9", Ro 9" ll»-'-=s, 

1 Th P, 2 P 1'°), — words which had been preparetl 
for this NT use by their employment in tlie LXX 
— the two former to translate "inj and Tn;. In 

2 Th 2" a.lp( is used .similarly. 

ii. Prkdestination in OT.— No survey of the 
terms used to express it, however, can convey an 
adequate sense of the place occupied by the idea 
of predestination in the religious system of the 
liible. It is not too much to say that it is funda- 
mental to the whole religious con.sciousness of the 
liiblical writers, and is so involved in all thiir 
religious conceptions that to eradicate it would 
transform the entire scriptural representation. 
This is as true of the OT as of the NT, as will 
become sufficiently manifest by attending briefly 

to the nature and implications of such form.Ttiva 
elements in the OT sj'stem as its doctrines of God, 
Providence, Faith, and the King;dom of God. 

I. Fundnmcntal OT ideas unphjing Predesti- 
nation. — Whencesoever Israel obtained it, it is 
quite certain that Israel entered upon its national 
existence with the most vivid consciousness of an 
almighty personal Creator and Governor of heaven 
and earth. Israel's o\\'n account of the clearness 
and the firmness of its apprehension of this mighty 
Author and Ruler of all that is, refers it to His 
own initiative : God chose to make Himself known 
to the fathers. At all events, throughout tlie 
whole of OT literature, and for every period of 
history recorded in it, the fundamental conception 
of GoQ remains the same, and the two most per- 
sistently emphasized elements in it are just those 
of might and personality : before ever3-thing else, 
the God of Israel is the Omnipotent Person. 
Possibly the keen sense of the exaltation and 
illimitable power of God which forms the very 
core of the OT idea of God belongs rather to the 
general Semitic than to the specifically Israelitish 
element in its religion ; certainly it was alreaily 
prominent in the patriarchal God-consciousness, 
as is sufficiently evinced by the names of God 
current from the beginning of the OT revelation, — 
El, Eloah, Elohim, El Shaddai, — and as is illus- 
trated endlessly in the Biblical narrative. But it is 
equally clear that God was never conceived by the 
or saints as abstract power, but was ever thought 
of concretely as the all-powerful Person, and that, 
moreover, as clothed with all the attributes of 
moral personality, — pre-eminently with holiness, 
as the very summit of His exaltation, but along 
with holiness, also with all the characteristics that 
belong to spiritual personality as it exhibits itself 
familiarly in man. In a word, God is pictured in the 
OT, and that from the beginning, purely after the 
pattern of human personality, — as an intelligent, 
feeling, willing Being, like the man who is created 
in His image in all in which the life of a free 
spirit consists. The anthropomorphisms to which 
this mode of conceiving God led were sometimes 
startling enough, and might have become grossly 
misleading had not the corrective lain ever at hand 
in the accompanying sense of the immeasurable 
exaltation of God, by which He was removed 
above all the weaknesses of humanity. The 
result accordingly was nothing other than a 
peculiarly pure form of Theism. The grosser 
anthropomorphisms were full3- understood to be 
fiOTrative, and the residuary conception was that 
of an infinite Spirit, not indeed expressed in 
abstract terms nor from the first fully brought 
out in all its implications, but certainly in all ages 
of the OT development grasped in all its essential 
elements. (Cf. the art. God). 

Such a God could not be thought of otherwise 
than as the free determiner of ail that comes to 
pass in the world which is the product of His 
creative act ; and the doctrine of Providence ('n??) 
which is spread over the pages of the OT fully bears 
out this expectation. The almighty Maker of all 
that is is represented equally as the irresistible 
Ruler of all that He has made : Jehovah sits as 
King for ever ( Ps 29'"). Even the common language 
of life was att'ected by this pervasive point of view, 
so that, for example, it is rare to meet with such 
a phrase as ' it rains ' (Am 4'), and men by prefer- 
ence spoke of God sending rain (Ps 65'"', Job 36^ 
38=*). The vivid sense of dependence on God thus 
witnessed extended throughout every relation of 
life. Accident or chance was excluded If we 
read here and there of a •Tipp it is not thought ol 
as happening apart from God's direction (Ru 2", 
1 S 6« 20'^, Eg 2'«, cf. 1 K 22**, 2 Ch 18'»), and 
accordingly the lot was an accepted means of ob- 




tainin- the deci»ion of GoU (Jos V 14- 1S«, 1 S 10'», 
Joii 1"), and is didactically recognized as under 
His control (Pr le'^). All things without excep- 
tion, indeed, are disposed by Him, and His will 
is the ultimate account of all that occurs. Heaven 
and earth and all that is in them are the in- 
struments througli which He works His ends. 
Nature, nations, and the fortunes of the indi- 
vidual alike present in all their changes the tran- 
script of His purpose. The winds are His messen- 
gers, the flaming lire His servant : every natural 
occurrence is His act : prosperity is His gift, and 
if calamity falls upon man it is the Lord tliat has 
done it (Am 3»- «, La 3^-^, Is 47', Ec 7", Is 54"). 
It is He that leads the feet of men, wit they 
whither or not ; He that raises up and casts down ; 
opens and hardens the heart ; and creates the very 
thoughts and intents of the soul. So poignant is 
the sense of His activity in all that occurs, that an 
appearance is sometimes created as if everything 
that comes to pass were so a.scribed to His imme- 
diate production aa to exclude the real activity of 
secona causes. It is a grave mistake, nevertheless, 
to suppose that He is conceived as an unseen 
power, thro^^■ing up, in a quasi-Pantheistic sense, 
all changes on the face of the world and history. 
The virile sense of the free personality of tJod 
which dominates all the thought of the OT would 
alone have precluded such a conception. Nor is 
there really any lack of recognition of 'second 
causes,' as we call them. They are certainly not 
conceived as independent of God : they are rather 
t)ie mere expression of His stated will. But they 
are from the beginning fully recognized, both in 
nature — with respect to which Jehovah has made 
covenant (Gn 8='- K Jer 31«»- " 33»*- =», Ps 148", cf. Jg 
5--, Ps 104», Job SS^'-" 14»), establishing its laws 
(ni,-!- Job 2825- =8, Is 40", Job 38«-", Pr 8^, Jer 5-, 
Ps 1049 337^ Jer 40=»)— and equally in the higher 
sphere of free spirits, who are ever conceived as 
the true authors of nil their acts (hence God's 
proving of man, Gn 22', Ex 16* 20'^, Dt 8«- " 13', 
Jg3'*, 2Ch32^'). There is no question hereof 
the substitution of Jehovah's operation for that of 
the proximate causes of events. There is only the 
liveliest perception of the governing hand of God 
behind the proximate causes, acting through them 
for the working out of His will in every detail. 
Such a conception obviously looks upon the uni- 
verse teleologically ; an almiglity moral Person 
cannot be supposed to govern His universe, thus 
in every detail, either unconsciously or capri- 
ciously. In His government there is necessarily 
implied a plan ; in the all-pervasiveness and per- 
fection of Hi.s government is inevitably implied 
an all-inclusive and perfect plan : and this concep- 
tion is not seldom explicitly developed (cf. art. 

It is abundantly clear on the face of it, of course, that this 
whole mode of thought ia the natural expression of the deep 
religious conseiousnesa of the OT writers, thoupli surely it is 
not therefore to be set aside as 'merely' the religious view of 
things, or ns having no other rooting save in the imagination 
of religiouMly-niinded men. In any event, however, it is alto- 
gether natural that in the more distinctive 8t)here of the 
religious life its informing principle of absolute clependenne on 
Go<r should be found to repeat itself. This appears particularly 
in the OT doctrine of faith, in which theresounds the keynote 
of or piety,— for the reliuion of the OT, so far from being, as 
I lego!, for example, would altlrm, the religion of fear, is rather 
by way of eminence the religion of trust. SUinding over against 
Ood, not merely as creatures, butos sinners, the OT saint« found 
no ground of hope save in the free initiative of the Uivme love. 
At no period of the development of OT religion was it per- 
mitted to be imaginefl tliat blessings might ho wrung from 
the hands of an unwilling Ood, or gained in the strength of 
man's own arm. Rather it was ever inculcated that in this 
Shhere, too, it is Ood alone that lifts up and maltes rieh. He 
alone that keeps the feet of His holy ones ; while by str<^nglh, 
it isalllnncd. no man shall prevail (I S 2i'). '1 am not worthy 
of the least of all thy mercies' is the constant refrain of the 
OT saints (CJn 3210) ; and from the very beginning, in narrative, 
precept and prophetic declaratioD alike, it Is m trust in the 
VOL. IV. — 4 

unmerited love of Jehovah alone that the hearts of men are 
represented as finding peace. .Self-suttlciency is tiie character, 
islic mark of the wicked, whose doom treuds on his heels ; while 
the mark of the righteous is that he lives by liis faith (ITab :;'). 
In the entire self-commitment to God, humble dependence on 
Him for all blessings, which is the very core of OT religion, no 
element is more central than the profound conviction embodied 
in it of the free sovereignty of God, the God of the spirits of 
all flesh, in the distribution of His mercies. The whole training 
of Israel was directed to impressing upon it the great les-son 
enunciated to Zerubbabel, ' Not by might, nor by power, but 
by my Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts ' (Zee 4*J) — that all that 
comes to man in the spiritual sphere, too, is the free gift of 
Jehovah (cf. art. FAmi). 

Nowhere is this lesson more persistently empha-sized than 
in the history of the establishment and devclu{>ment of the 
kingdom of God, which may well be called the cardinal theme 
of the OT. For the kingdom of God is consistently repre- 
sented, not aa the product of man's efforts in seeking after 
God, but aa the gracious creation of God Himself. Its inception 
and development are the crowning manifestation of the free 
grace of tne Living God working in history in pursuance 
of His loving purpose to recover fallen man to Himself. To 
this end He preser\'e3 the race in existence after its sin, saves 
a seed from the destruction of the Flood, separates to Him- 
self a family in Abraham, sifta it in 130.00 and Jacob, nurses and 
trains it through the weakness of its infancy, and gradually 
moulds it to be the vehicle of His revelatio.i of redemption, 
and the channel of Messianic blessings to the world. At every 
step it is God, and God alone, to whom is ascribed the initiative ; 
ana the most extreme care is taken to preserve the recipient-^ of 
the blessings consequent on His choice from fancying that thet^e 
blessings come as their due, or as reward for aught done by 
themselves, or to be found in themselves. They were rather in 
every respect emphatically not a people of their own making, 
but a people that God had formed that they might set forlli His 
praise (Is 4323). xhe strongest language, the most ostonisihing 
figures, were employed to emphasise the pure sovereignty of 
tlie Divine action at every stage. It was not because Israel 
was numerous, or strong, or righteous, that He chose it, but 
only because it pleaj^ed Him to make of it a people for Himself. 
He was as the potter, it as the clay whicli the potter moulds 
as he will ; it woa but aa the helpless babe in its blood cost out 
to die, abhorred of man, which Jehovah strangely gathers to 
His bosom in unmerited love (Gn 121 3, Dt 7C-» 9^'' lO'S 18, 
IS 12", Is 418. » 4320 489-11, Jer 18"- 31», Hos 220, Mai 1» 3). 
There was no element in the religious consciousness of Israel 
more poignantly realized, as there w-as no element in the in- 
struction they had received more insisted on, than that they 
owed their separation from the peoples of the earth to be the 
Lord's inheritance, and all the blessings they had as such 
received from Jehovah, not to any claim upon Ilim which they 
could urge, but to His own gracious love faithfully persisted 
in in spite of every conceivable obstacle (cf. art. Kingdom op 

In one word, the sovereignty of the Divine will as the prin- 
ciple of all tliat comes to pass, is a primary postulate of the 
wliole religious life, as well as of the entire world-view of the 
OT. It is implicated in its very idea of God, its whole concep- 
tion of the relation of God to the world and to the changes 
which take pKace, whether in nature or history, anion*? the 
nations or in the life-fortunes of the individual ; and also in 
its entire scheme of religion, whether national or personal. It 
lies at the basis of all the religious emotions, and lays the 
foundation of the speuitic type of religious character built up in 

2. Co.f7nicnl Predestination in OT. — The specific 
teaching of OT as to prcdestin.ation naturally re- 
volves around the two foci ot that idea which 
may be designated general and special, or, more 
properly, cosniieal and soteriological predestina- 
tion ; or, in other words, around the doctrines of 
the Divine Decree and the Divine Election. The 
former, as was to be expected, is conijiaratively 
seldom adverted to — for the OT is funciamentally 
a .soteriological book, a revelation of the L'^ruce of 
(iod to sinners ; and it is only at a somewhat late 
period that it is made the subject of sjieculative 
discussion. Hut as it is imjilied in the prim- 
ordial idea of God as an Almighty Person, it is 
postulated from the lieginning and continually 
linds more or less clear expression. Throughout 
the OT, behind the processes of nature, the march 
of historj' and the fortunes of each individual life 
alike, there is steadily kept in view the governing 
hand of God working out His preconceived plan-- 
a jilan broad enough to embrace the whole universe 
of things, minute enough to concern it.self with the 
smallest details, and actualizing itself with in- 
evitable certainty in every event that comes to 

Naturally, there is in the narrative [lortirns bnt 




little formal enunciation of this pervasive and all- 
coutrolliiig Divine teleology. But despite occasional 
antluoponiorphisras of rather startling character 
(as, e.g., that which ascribes 'repentance' to God, 
Gn G«, Jl 2", Jon 4», Jer 18»- '» 2ii'- '»), or rather, let 
us sa}', just because of the strictly anthropomorphic 
mould in which the OT conception of God is run, 
according to which He is ever thought of as a 
personal spirit, acting with purpose like other 
personal spirits, but with a wisdom and in a 
sovereignty unlike that of others because infinitely 
perfect, these narrative portions of the OT also 
bear continual witness to the universal OT tele- 
ology. There is no explicit statement in the 
narrative of the creation, for example, that the 
mighty Maker of the world was in this process 
operating on a preconceived plan ; but the teleology 
of creation lies latent in the orderly sequence of its 
parts, culminating in man for whose advent all 
that precedes ii obviously a preparation, and is all 
but expressed in the Divine satisfaction at each of 
its stages, as a manifestation of His perfections 
(cf. Ps 1U4"'). Similarly, the whole narrative of the 
Bk. of Genesis is so ordered — in the succession of 
creation, fall, promise, and the several steps in the 
inauguration of the kingdom of God — as to throw 
into a very clear light the teleology of the whole 
world-history, here «Titten from the Divine stand- 
point and made to centre around the developing 
Ivingdom. In the detailed accounts of the lives of 
the patriarchs, in like manner, behind the external 
occurrences recorded there always lies a Divine 
ordering which provides the real plot of the story 
in its advance to the predetermined issue. It was 
not accident, for example, that brought Kebecca to 
the well to welcome Abraham's servant (Gn 24), or 
that sent Joseph into Egypt (Gn 45* 50"° ; ' God 
meant [ns'n] it for good '), or guided Pharaoh's 
daughter to the ark among the flags (Ex 2), or 
that, later, directed the millstone that crushed 
Abimelech's head (Jg 9^'), or winged the arrow 
shot at a venture to smite the king in the joints of 
the harness (1 K 22**). Every historical event is 
rather treated as an item in the orderly carrying 
out of an underlying Divine purpose ; and the 
historian is continually aware of tlie presence in 
history of Him who gives even to the lightning a 
charge to strike the mark (Job 36^-). 

In the Psalmists and Prophets there emerges into 
view a more abstract statement of the government 
of all things according to the good pleasure of God 
(Ps 3:i", Jcr 10'- 51"). All that He wills He does 
(Ps l\i>' 13.5''), and all that comes to pass has pre- 
exi.sted in His piirpose from the indefinite past of 
eternity (' long ago' Is 22", 'of ancient times' Is 
37^=1 K 19-^), and it is only because it so pre- 
existed in purpose that it now comes to pass (Is 
14=4. -.1 4611, ^ec 1«, Job 42=, Jer 23-'", Jon 1", Is 40'"). 
Every day has its ordained events (Job 14°, Ps 
139'*). The plan of God is universal in its reach, 
and orders all that takes place in the interests of 
Israel— the OT counterpart to the NT declaration 
that all thin"S work together for good to those 
that love God. Nor is it merely for the national 
good of Israel that God's plan has made provision ; 
He exercises a special care over every one of His 
people (Job 5""-, Ps 91. 121. 65» 37. 27"'-" 139", Jon 
3', Is 4', Dn 12'). Isaiah especiall}' is never weary 
of emphasizing the universal teleology of the Divine 
operations and the surety of the realiz,ation of His 
eternal purpose, despite the ojiposition of every foe 
(14-'--'' 31^ 40'» 58"")— whence he has justly earned 
the name of the prophet of tlie Divine sovereigntj-, 
and has been spoken of as the Paul, the Augustine, 
the Calvin of the OT. 

It is. however, especially in connexion with the 
OT doctrine of tlie Wisdom (ncrri) of God, the chief 
depository of which is the so-called Jfokhmah litera- 

ture, that the idea of the all-inclusive Divine pur- 
pose (.1^1! and ni3V'"7) in which lies predetermined 
the whole course of events — including every par- 
ticular in the life of the world (\m 3') and in the 
life of every individual as well (Ps 139'''''*, Jg P)— 
is speculatively wrought out. According to this 
developed conception, God, acting under the guid- 
ance of all His ethical perfections, has, by virtue 
of His eternal wisdom, whicli He ' possessed in the 
beginning of his way ' (Pr S"), framed ' from ever- 
lasting, from the beginning,' an all-inclusive jdan 
embracing all that is to come to pass; in accordance 
with which plan He now governs His universe, 
down to the least particular, so as to subserve His 
perfect and unchanging purpose. Everj'thing that 
God has brought into being, therefore, He has 
made for its specific end (Pr 16S cf. S'"-*", Job 2S-^ 
38. 41, Is 40'-'-, Jer lO'-- "') ; and He so governs it 
that it shall attain its end, — no chance can escape 
(Pr 16^), no might or subtlety defeat His direction 
(Pr 2P»-3i 19=' IC^ cf. Is 14"=^-", Jer 10-=*), which 
leads straight to the goal appointed by God from 
the beginning and kept steadily in view by Him, 
but often hidden from the actors themselves (Pr 
20-\ cf. 3" 16'-» 19-', Job 38= 42^, Jer lO^^), who 
naturally in their weakness cannot comprehend the 
sweep of the Divine plan or understand the place 
within it of the details brought to their observation 
— a fact in which the OT sages constantly find their 
theodicy. No ditiierent doctrine is enunciated here 
from that which meets us in the I'lophets and 
Psalmists, — only it is approached from a philo- 
sophical - religious rather than from a national- 
religious view-point. To prophet and sage alike 
the entire world — inanimate, animate, moral — is 
embraced in a unitary teleological world-order (Pa 
19^ 33« 104'^ 148"*, Job 9^ 12'^ 37) ; and to both alike 
the central place in this comprehensive world-order 
is taken by God's redemptive purpose, of which 
Israel is at once the object and the instrument, 
while the savour of its saltness is the piety of the 
individual saint. The classical term for this all- 
inclusive Divine purpose (nyj') is accordingly found 
in the usage alike of prophet, psalmist, and sage, — 
now used absolutelj' of the universal plan on which 
the whole world is orderetl (Job 3S-' 42', cf. Delitzsch 
and Budde, in loc), now, with the addition of 'of 
Jehovah,' of the all-comprehending purpose, em- 
bracing all human actions (Pr 19-' and parallels; 
cf. Toy, in luc), now with explicit mention of Israel 
as the centre around which its provisions revolve 
(Ps 33" 107",' cf. Delitzsch, in loc. ; Is 14-'" 25' 
46'"- "), and ai;on with more immediate concern with 
some of the details (Ps 100'^ Is 5'» 19", Jer 49*' 
50« Mic 4'-'). 

There seems no reason why a Platonizing colouring should be 
given to this simple attributing to the God of an eternal 
plan in which is predetennined every event that comes to pass. 
This used to be done, e.g., by Delitzsch (see, e.g., on Job 
2a^'^, Is 22" ; liihlii-al Pxycliologti, I. ii.), who was wont to 
attribute to the BiblicjU writers, especially of the Uokhmah and 
the latter portion of Isaiah, a doctrine of the pre-existeiice of all 
thintrs in an ideal world, conceived a» standing? eternally lM»for* 
God at least as a pattern if not even iis a quasi-objective mould 
imposing their tonus on all Ilia creatures, which smacked more 
of the IJrcek Academics than of the Hebrew sages. As a matter 
of course, the Divine mind was conceived by the Hebrew sages 
as eternally contemplating all possibilities, and we should not do 
them injustice in supposing them to think of its * ideas ' as the 
cai(»a exrmjilaris of all that occurs, and of the Divine intellect 
as the principinm dirigcnx of every Divine operation. But it is 
more to the point to note that the conceptions of the OT writers 
in regard to the Divine decree run rather into the moulds of 
'purpose' than of 'ideas,' and that the rootj. of their teaching 
are planted not in an abstract idea of the Godhead, but in the 
purity of their concrete theism. It is because the\' think of God 
as a person, like other persons punwseful in His acts, but unlike 
other persons all-wise in His planning and all-powerful in His 
performing, that they think of Him as predetermining all that 
shall come to pass in the universe, which is in all its elements 
the product of His free activity, and which must in its form and 
all its history, down to the least detail, correspond with His 
puri>ose in making it. It is easy, on the other hand, to attribute 
too little ■ philosophy ' to the Biblical writers. The conceptira 




of God in His relation to the world which they develop is 
bevond <|iie»tion nntliropomorphic ; but it is no unrelli-ctiiif 
»ntliru|K.niorplusni thai they give us. Apart troui all iiuestiou 
ol revelation, they were not children prattling' on Bubjects on 
whicli they had exjKnded no thought; and the world-view they 
commend 'to us certainly does not lack in profundity. The 
aubtleties o( laniniaKc o( a developed scholasticism were foreign 
to their purposes and modes of composition, but they t«ll us as 
clearly as, »av, Spanheim himself (Mood. Tltcijl. vi. § 6), that 
they are deaiintt with a purjiosingr mind exalted so far above 
ours that we can follow its movements only with haltinj; steps, 
—whose ihouL'hts are not as our thoushts, and whose ways are 
not as our way. (U 65» ; ct. 40". 'is -i^a. Job 11"-, I's 9« \av«- 
147' Kc3ii)- l-e-ast of all in such a theme as this were they 
liable to forget that infinite exaltation of Cod which constituted 
the basis on which their whole conception of God rested. 

Nor may they be thought to have been indiUcrcnt to the 
relations of thchigli doctrine o( the Divine purpose they were 
teaching. There v. no scholastic determination here cither; 
but ceruinly thev write without embarrassment as men who 
have attained a linn grasp upon their fundaiiienul thought and 
have pursued it with clearness of thinking, no less in its 
relations than in itself ; nor need we go astray in apprehending 
the outlines of their construction. It is quite plain, for example, 
that they felt no confusion with respect to the relation of the 
Divine purpose to tiie Divine foreknowledge. The notion that 
the almighty and all-wise Uml, by whom all things were created, 
and through whose irresistible control all that occurs fulfils the 
»ppointnienl of His primal plan, could govern Himself according 
to a foreknowledge of things which— perhaps apart from His 
original purpose or present guidance— i/iiynt haply come to 
pa»s, would have been quite contradictory to their most 
fundamenUil conception of Uod as the ainiightyand all-sovereign 
Ruler of the universe, and, inclee<l, also of the whole OT idea of 
the Divine foreknowledge itself, » hiuli is ever thought of in its 
due relation of depenilence on the Divine purpose. According 
to the OT conception, Ood foreknows only because He has pre- 
delennined. and it is therefore also that He brings it to pass; 
His foreknowledge, in other worda, is at bottom a knowledge of 
His own will, and His works of proviilence are merely the 
execution of His all-embracing plan. This is the truth that 
underlies the somewhat incongruous form of statement of late 
becoming rather frequent, to the effect that Uod's foreknow- 
ledge is conceived in the OT as ' productive.' Dillmann, for 
example, says (AT Theologie, p. 251): ' His forekno%vledge of 
the future is a productive one ; of on otiose foreknowledge or of a 
jmrgfienria infilia . . . there is no suggestion.' In the thought 
of the oT writers, however, it is not Ood's foreknowledge that 

Sroduces the events of the future; it is His irresistible provi- 
ential government of the world He has created for Himself: 
and His foreknowledge of what is yet to he rests on His pre- 
arranged plan of government. His • jircsluctive foreknowledge* 
la but a transcript of His will, which has already determined 
not onlv the general plan of the world, but every particular that 
enters "into the whole course of its developmenl (Am 3', .lob 
2gM. 'i7), and everv detail in the life of every individual that 
comes into being (Jer 1', I's IS'Ji-'-li', Job 23" i^). 

That the acta of free agents are included in this 'productive 
foreknowlo^lge,' or rather in this all-inclusive plan of the life 
of the universe, created for the OT writers apparently not the 
least embarrassment. This is not because they did not believe 
man to be free,- throughout the whole OT there is never the 
least doubt expressed of the freedom or moral responsibility 
of man,— hut because they did believe Ood to be free, whether 
in His works of creation or of providence, and could not believe 
Ho was hampered or limited in the attainment of His ends 
by the creatures of His own hands. How (iod governs ihc 
acts of free agents in the pursuance of His plan there is little 
in the OT to inform us; but that He governs them in even 
their most inliniate thoughts and feelings and impulses is 
its unvuriiiig assuinplion : He is not only the creator of the 
hearts of iiieii in the first instance, and knows them altogether, 
hut He fashions the hearts of all in all the changing circiim- 
alanccs of life (I's :l3i'') ; foniis the spirit of man within him in 
all its motions (Zee 12'): keeps the hearts of men in His hands, 
turning them whithersoever He will (I'r 211) ; so that it Is even 
aaid that man knows what is in his own mind only as the Lord 
reveals it to liim (Am *''■>). The tliscussion of any antinomy 
that may be thought to arise from such a joint assertion of 
the absolute rule of Cod in the sphere of tlie spirit and the 
freedom of the crcaturely will, falls obviously under the topic 
of Providential Covernn'icnt rather than under thai of the 
Decree (see I'roviuksck) : it requires to be diverted to here 
only that we may clearly note the fa<:l that the OT teachers, 
as they did not hesitate to allirm the absolute sway of Cod 
over tiie thoughts and intents of the human heart, could feel 
no embarra-ssment in the inclusion of the acts of free agents 
within the all-embracing plan ol Cod, the outworking of which 
IJis jirovidenlial govirnnunt supplies. 

Nor docs the moral qiialitv of these acts present any apparent 
dilHcully to the OT constniclion. We are never penuitted to 
imagine, to be sure, that tJod is the author of sui, either in the 
wnrtrl at large or in any individual soul— that He is in any way 
implicate<i in the sinfulness of the acts performed by the 
perverse misuse of <!reatiirely freedom. In all (;o<l's working 
lie shows Himself pre-eminently the Holy One. and prosecutes 
His holy will, His righteous way. His all-wise plan : the blame 
for all sinful fleeds rests exclusivelv on the creatnrely actors 
(Kx l"'" 1U"1), who recognlie their own guilt (2 S 24"' ") and 
recei\ e its punishment (Kc 1 1^ compared with 11*). But neither 
U God's relation to the sinful acts of His creatures ever repre- 

sented aspurelvpa-ssive: the details of the doctrine of ctmatrgru 
were left, no doubt, to later ages speculatively to work out, but 
its assumption underlies the entire OT representation of the 
Divine modes of working. That anything— good or evil--- 
occurs in God's universe finds its account, according to the OT 
conception, in His positive ordering and active concurrence ; 
while the moral quality of the deed, considered in itself, is 
rooted in the moral character of the subordinate ogeiit, acting 
in the circumstances and under the motives operative in each 
instance. It is certainly going beyond the OT warrant to speak 
of Uie 'all-productivity of God,' as if He were the onl^v cthcient 
cause in nature and the sphere of the tree spirit alike ; it is 
the very delirium of uiisconception to say that in the OT God 
and Satan are iusufficienth' discriminated, and dccdsappropriate 
to the latter are assigned to the former. Nevertheless, it remains 
true that even the evil acts of the creature are so far carried 
back to God that they too are allirmed to be included in His 
all-embracing decree, and to be brought about, bounded and 
utilized in His providential government. It is He that hardens 
the heart of the sinner that persists in his sin (Ex 4'-i 7^ lOl- 27 
144 ]48_ Dt ■i'O, Jos U'-f, Is 8910 6317) ; it is from Him that the 
evil spirits proceed that trouble sinners (1 S 1014, j,- flli, i K 22, 
Job 1) ; it is of Him that the evil impulses that rise in sinners 
hearts take this or that specific form (2 8 l(i» 24', 1 K 121-0. 
The philosophy that lies behind such representations, however, 
is not the pantheism which looks upon God as the immediate 
cause of all that comes to pass ; much less the pandainionism 
which admits no distinction between good and evil ; there is 
not even involved a conception of Ood enUaii'ded in an un- 
developed ethical discrimination. It is the philosophy that is 
expressed in Is 47' 'I am the Lord, and there is none else; 
beside me there is no God. ... I am the Loud, and there is 
none else. I form the light and create darkness; 1 make peace 
and create evil; I am the Lord that doelh all these things' ; 
it is the philosophv that is expressed in I'r \6* 'The l-oiio 
hath made everything for its own end, ,yea, even the wicked 
for the day of evil.' Because, over against all dualislio con- 
ceptions, there is but one God, and He is indeed God ; and 
because, over against all cosmotheistic conceptions, this God is 
a I'KRso's who acts purposefully ; there is nothing that is, and 
nothing that comes to pass, that He has not first decreed and 
then brought to pass by His creation or providence. Thus all 
things find their unity iii His eternal plan ; and not their unity 
merely, hut their justification as well ; even the evil, though 
retaining its quality as evil and hateful to the holy God, and 
certain to be dealt" with as hateful, yet docs not occur apart 
from His provision or against His will, but appears in the 
world which He has made only as the instrumcnl by means of 
which He works the higher good. 

This sublime philosophv of the decree is immanent in every 
page of the OT. Its metaphysics never come to explicit dis- 
cussion, to be sure ; but its elements are in a practical way 
postulated consistently throughout. The ultimate end in view 
in tlie Divine plan is ever represented as found in God alone: 
all that He has made He has made for Himself, to set forth 
His praise: the heavens tliemselves with all their splendid 
furniture exist hut to illustrate His glory ; the carlli and all 
that is in it, and all that happens in it, to declare His majesty ; 
the whole course of history is but the theatre of His selfinani- 
festation, and the events of every individual life indicjitc His 
nature and perfections. Men may be unable to understand 
tlie place which the incidents, as lliey unroll themsehes before 
their eyes, take in the developing plot of the great drama : 
thev niay, nay, must, therefore stand astonished and con- 
founded before this or that which befalls llieiii or befalls the 
world. Hence arise to them problems— the |iroblem of the 
iiettv, the prolilem of the inexplicable, the problem of suffering, 
the problem of sin (c.y. Ec 11»). But, in the infinite wisdom of 
the Lord of all the earth, each eicnt falls with exact precision 
into its proper place in the unfolding of His eternal plan; 
nothing, however small, however strange, occurs without Hia 
ordering, or without its peculiar fitness for its place in the 
working out of His purpose; and the end of all shall lie the 
manifestation of His glory, and the accumulation of His pniisc. 
This is the OT philosophy of the universe— a world-view which 
attains concrete unity in an absolute Divine teleology, in the 
compactness of an eternal decree, or purpose, or plan, of which 
all that comes to pass is the development in time. 

3. Soteriolofficnl Predcstinntion in 07".— Sppcial 
or Soleriuliiyical I'reili^stinittion liiiila a iitaiii.'il 
place in tlie UT system as but a piutictilar in- 
stance of the inoie general tact, anil iim.V 1"' 
looked upon as only the •jeneial t»T doctrine of 
preilestin.'ition applied to the specific case of the 
salvalion of sinners. But as the OT is a dis- 
tinctively religious book, or, more jirecisely, a dis- 
tinctively soteiiolo^ii'ul liook, tlint is to stiy, a 
record of the Km^'ous dealing's and purposes <)( 
Cod with sinners, snteriolot.'ical medestination 
naturally takes a more promineiil place in it thiin 
the general doctrine itself, of \vliich it is a par- 
ticular application. Indeed, (Jod's saving work is 
thrown out into such proiuinciicc, the OT is so 
specially a record of the establishment id" the 
kin"ilom of Ood in the world, that wo easily get 




the impression in reading it that the core of God's 
general decree is His decree of salvation, and that 
His whole plan for the government of the universe 
is subordinated to His purpose to recover sinful 
man to Himself. Of course there is some slight 
illusion of perspective here, the materials for cor- 
recting which the OT itself provides, not only in 
more or less specific declarations of the relative 
unimportance of wliat befalls man, whether the 
individual, or Israel, or the race at large, in com- 
parison with the attainment of the DiWne end ; 
and of the wonder of the Divine grace concerning 
itself with the fortunes of man at all (Job 22''' 
35"- 3S, Ps 8*) : but also in the general disposition 
of the entire record, which places the complete 
history of sinful man, including alike his fall into 
sin and all the provisions for his recovery, within 
the larger history of the creative work of God, as 
but one incident in the greater whole, governed, 
of course, like all its other parts, by its general 
teleology. Relatively to the OT record, never- 
theless, as indeed to the Biblical record as a whole, 
which is concerned directly only with God's deal- 
ings with humanity, and that, especially, a sinful 
humanity (Gn 3" 6' g-', Lv 18=", Dt 9*, 1 K 8«, 
Ps 14' 51» 130» 1432, Pr 20', Ec T", Is I^ Hos 4', 
Job 15" 25* 14*), soteriological predestination is 
the prime matter of importance ; and the doctrine 
of election is accordingly thrown into relief, and 
the general doctrine of the decree more incident- 
ally adverted to. It would be impossible, however, 
that the doctrine of election taught in the OT 
should follow other lines than those laid down in 
the general doctrine of the decree, — or, in other 
words, that God should be conceived as working 
in the sphere of grace in a manner that would be 
out of accord with the fundamental conception 
entertained by these ^Titers of the nature of God 
and His relations to the universe. 

Accordingly, there is nothing concerning the 
Divine election more sharply or more steadily 
emphasized than its graciousness, in the highest 
sense of that word, or, in other terms, its absolute 
sovereignty. This is plainly enough exhibited 
even in the course of the patriarchal history, 
and that from the beginning. In the very hour of 
man's first sin, God intervenes sua sponte with a 
gratuitous promise of deliverance ; and at every 
stage afterwards the sovereign initiation of the 
grace of God — the Lord of the whole earth (Ex 
19')— is strongly marked, as God's universal counsel 
of salvation is more and more unfolded through 
the separation and training of a people for Him- 
self, in whom the whole world should be blessed 
(Gn 12» 18'« 22'8 26* 28") : for from the beginning 
it is plainly indicated that the whole history of 
the world is ordered with reference to the estab- 
lishment of the kingdom of God (Dt 32', where 
the reference seems to be to Gn 11). Already in 
the opposing lines of Seth and Cain (Gn 4'-^- *) a 
discrimination is made ; Noah is selected as the 
head of a new race, and among his sons the 
preference is given to Shem (Gn 9^), from whose 
line Abraham is taken. Every fancy that Abra- 
ham owed his calling to liis own desert is carefully 
excluded, — he was 'known' of God only that in 
him God might establish His kingdom (Gn 18'") ; 
and the very acme of sovereignty is exhibited 
(as St. Paul points out) in the subsequent choice 
of Isaac and Jacob, and exclusion of Isbmael and 
Esau ; while the whole Divine dealing witli the 
patriarchs — their sejiaration from their kindred, 
removal into a strange land, and the like — is 
eWdently understood as intended to cast them 
back on the grace of God alone. Similarly, the 
covenant made with Israel (Ex 19-24) is constantly 
assigned to the sole initiative of Divine grace, and 
the fict of election is therefore appropriately set 

at the head of the Decalogue (Ex 20'; cf. 34«-'); 
and Israel is repeatedly warned that there was 
nothing in it whiih moved or could move God to 
favour it {e.ff. Dt 4^ 7' 8" 9* 10", Ezk 16', Am 9') 
It has already been pointed out by what energetic 
figures this fundamental le-sson was impressed on 
the Israelitish consciousness, and it is only true 
to say that no means are left unused to drive 
home the fact that God's gracious election of 
Israel is an absolutely sovereign one, founded 
solely in His unmerited love, and looking to nothing 
ultimately but the gratification of His own holy 
and lo^'ing impulses, and the manifestation of His 
grace through the formation of a heritage for 
Himself out of the mass of sinful men, by means of 
whom His saving mercy should advance to the 
whole world (Ps 8', Is 40. 42. 60, Mic 4', Am 4'» 
5\ Jer 31", Ezk 17^ 36=', JI 2-»). The simple terms 
that are employed to express this Divine selection 
— 'know' iVT,), 'choose' (in;) — are either used in 
a pregnant sense, or acquire a pregnant sense by 
their use in this connexion. Tlie deeper meaning 
of the former term is apparently not specifically 
Hebrew, but more widely Semitic (it occurs also in 
Assyrian ; see the Dictionaries of Delitzsch and 
Muss-Arnolt s^ub voc, and especially Haupt in 
Beitrdge zur Assyriotogie, i. 14, 15), and it can 
create no surprise, therefore, when it meets us 
in such passages as Gn 18" (ef. Ps 37'* and also 
1' 31* ; cf. Baetligen and Delitzscli in loc), Hos 13' 
(cf. WUnsche in loc.) in something of the sense 
expressed by the scholastic phrase, nosse cum 
affectu et effcctu ; while in the great declaration 
of Am 3' (cf. Baur and Gunning in loc), 'You 
only have I known away from all the peoples of 
the earth,' what is tlirown prominently forward 
is clearly tlie elective love which has singled Israel 
out for special care. More commonly, however, 
it is ina that is employed to express God's sovereign 
election of Israel : the classical passage is, of 
course, Dt 7*-' (see Driver in loc, as also, of the 
love underljdng the ' choice,' at 4" 7*), where it is 
carefully explained that it is in contrast with the 
treatment accorded to all the other peoples of the 
earth that Israel has been honoured with the 
Divine choice, and that the choice rests solely on 
the unmerited love of God, and finds no foundation 
in Israel itself. These declarations are elsewhere 
constantly enforced (e.g. 4" 10" 14=), with the 
effect of throwing the strongest possible emphasis 
on the complete sovereignty of God's choice of His 
people, who owe their ' separation ' unto Jehovah 
(Lv 20=*-=«, 1 K S^) wholly to the wonderful love 
of God, in which He has from the beginning taken 
knowledge of and chosen them. 

It is useless to seek to escape the profound meaning of thia 
fundamental OT teaching: by recalliiiff the undeveloped state 
o^ the doctrine of a future life in Israel, and the national 
scope of its election,— as if the sovereign choice which is so 
insisted on could thus be confined to the choice of a people 
aa a whole to cerlaiii purely earthly blessini^s, without any 
reference whatever to the eternal destiny of the individuals 
concerned. We are here treading very close to the abysa 
of confusing progress in the delivery of doctrine with the 
reality of God's saving' activities. The" cardinal question, after 
all, does not concern the extent of the knowledj,'e possessed 
by the OT saints of tlie nature of the blessedness that belonjjs 
to the people of God ; nor yet the relation home by the 
election within the election, by the real Israel fomiint^ the 
heart of the Israel after the llesb, to the external Israel : it 
concerns the existence of a real kingdom of Cod in the OT 
dispensation, and the methods by which God introduce<l man 
into it. It is true enough that the tbeocrac.v was an earthly 
kingdom, and that a prominent place was jfiven to the proniisea 
of the life that now is in the blessings assured to Israel ; and it 
is in this engrossment with earthly happiness and the close 
connexion of the friendship of God with the enjoyment ol 
worldly poods that the undeveloped state of the OT doctrine 
of salvation is especially apparent. But it should not be for- 
gotten that the promise of earthly gain to the people of God 
IS not entirely alien to the NT idea of salvation (Mt 6", 1 TI 
48), and that it is in no sense true that in the OT teaching, 
in any of its stages, the blessings of the kingdom were summed 
up in worldly happiness. The covenant blessing is ratlier 




decUrcd to be Me, inclusive of aU that coinprehcnsive 
word i9 fitted to convey (Ut SO"; c( 4" Si, IT 12-^' S^); anJ 
it found its best exprtsaion in the high conception ol the 
favour of God' (Lv aj", I'» 40 162-6 63?); whUe it concerned 
Itaclt with earthly prosiK-rity only as and bo far as that is 
a plcdne of the Divine favour. It 18 no false testimony to 
the or saints when they are described as lookins for the 
city that lias the foundations and as enduring as seeiiiB the 
Invisible One : it their hearts were not absorbed in the con- 
templation of the eternal future, they were absorbed in the 
contemplation of the Ktcrnal Lord, which certainly is some- 
thi.iK- even better; and the representation tliut they found 
their supreme blessedness in outward things runs so grossly 
athwart their own testimony tlmt it fairly deserves ' -'Ivin s 
terrible invective, that thus the Israelitish peojile are thought 
of not otherwise than as a 'sort of herd of svvine whuh (so, 
forsooth, it is pretended) the Lord was fattening in the pen 
of this world" (Iiut. u. x. 1). And, on the other hand, though 
Israel as a nation constituted the chosen people of Oral (ILh 
16>3 I's Si* VXfi- 12 1CKJ»), vet we must not lose from sight the tact 
that the nation as such was rather the symbolical than the real 
people of God, and was His people at all, indeed, only so tar 
as it was, idcallv or actually, identified with the inner body of 
the really ' chosen -that people whom •Jehovah fornicd tor 
Himself that thev might set forth llis praise (Is 43* »»•" -i^), 
and who constituted Uie real people of llis choice, the remnant 
of Jacob ■ (Is 61S, Am 8*10, Mai 31" ; cf. 1 K 1919, u sia. 18). Nor 
are we left in doubt as to how this inner core of actual people 
of God was constituted; we see the process in the call of 
Abraham, and the discrimination between Isaac and Ishniael, 
between Jacob and Esau, and it is no false Ustimony that 
It was ever a 'remnant according to the election of grace 
that God preserved to Himself as the salt of His people Israel. 
In every aspect of it alike, it is the sovereignty of the Uivine 
choice that is empliasized,— whether the reference be to the 
■egrcgation of Israel as a nation to enjoy the earthly favour ol 
G«l as a sj-mbol of the true entrance into rest, or the choice 
of a remnant out of Israel to enter into that real communion 
with Him which was the Joy of llis saint«,-of Enoch who 
walked with God (Gn 6=2), of Abraham who found in Him his 
excec<ling great reward (Gn 151), or of David who saw no good 
beyond Him, and sought in Him alone hia inheritance and 
his cup. Later times may have enjoye<l fuller knowledge ot 
what the grace of God had in store for llis saints— whether 
in this world or that which is to come ; later limes may have 
possessed a clearer apprehension of the distinction between 
the children of the flesh and the chiUiren of the promise : but 
no later teaching has a stronger emphasis for the central fact 
that it is of the tree grace of God alone that any enter in any 
degree into the participation of His favour. The kingdom of 
God according to the OT, in every circle of its meaning, is 
above and before all else a stone cut out of the mountoin 
• without hands ' (Dn 2*i «- ■i'). 

iii. Predestination among the Jews.— The 
profound religious conception of the relation of 
God to the works of His hands that pervades the 
wliole OT was too deeply engraved on the Jewish 
consciousness to be easDy erased, even after 
growing legalism had measurably corroded the 
religion of the people. As, however, the idea of 
law more and more absorbed the whole sphere 
of religious thought, and piety came to be con- 
ceived more and more as rij^lit conduct before 
God instead of living communion with God, men 
grew naturally to think of God more and more 
as abstract unapproachableness, and to think of 
themselves mote and more us their own saviours. 
The post-canonical .Jewish writings, while retain- 
ing fervent exiiressiims of dependence on God as 
the Lord of all, by whose wise counsel all things 
exist and work out their ends, and over against 
whom the whole world, with every creature in it, 
is but the instrument of His will of good to Israel, 
nevertheless threw an entirely new emjihasis on 
the autocracy of the human will. This em- 
pha-sis until in the later Judaism the 
extremity of heathen self-sulliciency is reproduced, 
and the whole sphere of the moral life is expressly 
reserved from Divine determination. Meanwhile 
also heathen terminology was intruding into Jewish 
speech. The I'latonic Trpji-oia, irpoi'oeii', for example, 
coming in doubtless through tlie medium of the 
Stoa, IS found not only in I'hihi (irepl r/woias), but 
also in the Aiiocryphal books (Wis 0' 11^ 17-', 3 Mac 
4^1 5™, 4 Mae 9^ Ui'" IT"; cf. also Un 6'*- '" LXX) ; 
the perhaps even moie jirecise as well as earlier 
^^opai- occurs in Jt.seplius (/.'./ 11. viii. 11), and 
indeed in the I..\ A, though here doubtless in 
a weakened sense (2 Mac ll!-- 15-, cf. 3 Mac 'J-', as 

also Job 34=* 28=* 1\!>-, cf. 21"; also Zee 9') ; while 
even the fatali.stic term diiapaivi) is employed by 
Josephus (BJ II. viii. 14 ; Ant. XIII. v. 9, XVUl. 
i. 3) to describe Jewish views of predestination. 
With the terms there came in, doubtless, more 
or less of the conceptions connoted by them. 

Whatever may have been the influences under 
which it was wrought, however, the tendency 
of post-canonical Judaism was towards setting 
aside the Biblical doctrine of predestination to a 
greater or less extent, or in a larger or smaller 
sjihere, in order to make room for the autocracy 
of the human will, the nvan, as it was significantly 
called by the Rabbis {Bcreshith Rabba, c. 22). This 
disintegrating process is little apparent perhaps 
in the liook of Wisdom, in which the sense of the 
almightincss of God comes to very strong expres- 
sion (11-'^ I2*-i=). Or even in riiilo, whose pre- 
destinarianism (de Leqq. AlUgor. i. 15, iii. 24, 27, 
28) closely follows, while his a.ssertion of human 
freedom i,Quod Deus sit immut. 10) does not pass 
beyond that of the Bible : man is separated from 
the animals and assimilated to God liy the gift of 
' the power of voluntary motion ' and suitable 
emancipation from necessity, and is accordingly 
properly praised or blamed for his intentional 
acts ; but it is of the grace of God only that any- 
thing exists, and the creature is not giver but 
receiver in all things; especially does it belong 
to God alone to plant and build up virtues, and 
it is impious for the mind, therefore, to say 'I 
plant'; the call of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob was 
of pure grace without any merit, and God oxer- 
cisis the right to 'dispose excellently,' prior to all 
actual deeds. But the process is already aiip.-irent 
in so early a book as Sirach. The book at large is 
indeed distinctly predestinarian, and such passages 
ji^g l(jM-3o 23-1' 33''-'' 39-"-=' echo the teachin<;s of the 
canonical books on this subject. But, while this 
is its general character, another element is also 
present: an assertion of autocracy, for ex- 
ample, which is without parallel in the canonical 
books, is introduced at 15""-", which culminates 
in the precise declaration that ' man has been com- 
mitted to the hand of his own counsel' to choose 
for himself life or death. The same phenomena 
meet us in the Pharisaic Psalms of Solomon 
(B C 70-40). Here there is a general recognition 
of God as the great and mighty King (2"'«') who 
has appointed the course of nature (18-°) and 
directs the development of history (2« 9* W), ruling 
over the whole and determining the lot of each 
(5«- "), on whom i;lone, therefore, can the hope of 
Israel be stayed (7» 17'), and to whom alone can 
the individual look for good. But, alongside of 
this expression of general dejiendence on God, 
there occurs the strongest assertion of the moral 
autocracy of the human will : ' O God, our works 
are in our own souls' election and control, to do 
righteousness or iniquity in the works of our hand 

It is quite credible, therefore, when Josephus 
tells us that the Jewish [larties of his day were 
divided, as on other niatter.s, so on the question 
of the Divine predestination— the Essenes allirm- 
ing that fate {(Ifiapixivri, Josejihus' allected Gr;e- 
cizing expression for predestination) is the mistress 
of all, and nothing occurs to men which is not in 
accoidance with its destination; the Saddueees 
tiikin" away 'fate' altogctlier, and consideiing 
that tliere is no .such thing, and that human allairs 
are not directed according to it, but all actions 
are in our own power, ho that we are ourselves 
the causes of what is good, and receive what is 
evil from our own folly ; "bile the Pharisees, 
seekin" a middle grouiiil, s.-iid that some actions, 
but no't. all, are tlie work of ■ f.ile,' and some nru 
in our own power as to whether they are done n 




not {Ant. XIII. v. 9). The distribution of the 
several views amon^ the parties follows the general 
lines of what might have been anticipated — the 
Essenic system being pre-eminently supianatural- 
istic, and the Sadducean rationalistic, while there 
was retained among the Pharisees a deep leaven 
of religious earnestness tempered, but not alto- 
gether destroyed (except in the extremest circles), 
by their ingrained legalism. The middle ground, 
moreover, whicli Joseplius ascribes to the Phari- 
sees in their attempt to distribute the control of 
human attion between 'fate' and 'free will,' re- 
flects not badly the state of opinion presupposed 
in the documents we have already quoted. In his 
remarks elsewhere (BJ II. viii. 14; Ant. XVIII. 
i. 3) he appears to ascribe to the Pharisees some 
kind of a doctrine of concurs^iis also — a Kpaaii 
between ' fate ' and the human will by which both 
co-operate in the etl'ect ; but his language is ob- 
scure, and is coloured doubtless bj' reminiscences 
of Stoic teaching, with which philosophical sect he 
compares the Pharisees as he compares the Essenes 
with the Epicureans. 

But whatever may have been the traditional be- 
lief of the Pharisees, in proportion as the legalistic 
spirit which constituted the nerve of the move- 
ment became prominent, the sense of dependence 
on God, which is the vital breath of the doctrine 
of predestination, gave way. The Jews possessed 
the OT Scriptures in which the Divine lordship 
is a cardinal doctrine, and the trials of persecution 
cast them continually back upon God ; they could 
not, therefore, wholly forget the Biblical doctrine 
of the Divine decree, and throughout their whole 
history we meet with its echoes on their lips. 
The laws of nature, the course of history, tlie 
varying fortunes of individuals, are ever attributed 
to the Divine predestination. Nevertheless, it 
was ever more and more sharply disallowed that 
man's moral actions fell under the same predeter- 
mination. Sometimes it was said that wliile the 
decrees of God were sure, they applied only so 
long as man remained in the condition in which 
he was contemplated when they were formed ; he 
could escape all predetermined evil by a change in 
his moral character. Hence such sayings as, ' The 
righteous destroy what God decrees' {Tanchuma 
on cn3i) ; ' Kepentance, prayer, and charity ward 
oil" every evil decree' (Rosh -hashana). In any 
event, the entire domain of the moral life was 
more and more withdrawn from the intrusion 
of the decree ; and Cicero's famous declaration, 
which Harnack says might be inscribed as a 
motto over Pelagianism, might with equal right 
be accepted as the working hypothesis of the later 
Judaism : ' For gold, land, and all the blessings 
of life we have to return tlianks to God ; but no 
one ever returned thanks to God for virtue ' (dc 
Nat. Deorum, iii. 36). We read that the Holy 
One determines prior to birth all that every one is 
to be — whether male or female, weak or strong, 
poor or rich, wise or silly ; but one thing He does 
not determine — whether he is to be righteous or 
unrighteous ; according to Dt 30'° this is com- 
mitted to one's own iiands. Accordinglj', it is 
said tliat 'neither evil nor good comes from God ; 
both are the results of our deeds' { rah. 
on -Ni, and Jnlkut there) ; and again, ' All is in 
the hands of God except the fear of God' (Meijilla 
ion) ; so that it is even somewhat cynically said, 
' Man is led in the way in which he wishcsto go ' 
{Maccoth 10); 'If you teach him riglit, his God 
will make him know' (Is 28^ ; Jerus. Vhallnh i. I). 
Thus the deep sense of dependence on God for all 
goods, and especially the goods of the soul, which 
forms the very core of the religious consciousness 
of the writers of the Old Testament, gradually 
vanished from the later Judaism, and was super- 

seded by a self-assertiveness which hung all good 
on the self-determination of the human spirit, on 
which the purposes of God waited, or to which 
they were subservient. 

iv. Predestination in NT.— The NT teaching 
starts from the plane of the OT revelation, and 
in its doctrines of God, Providence, Faith, and the 
Kingdom of God repeats or develops in a right line 
the fundamental deliverances of the OT, while in 
its doctrines of the Decree and of Election only 
such advance in statement is made as the pro<;res- 
sive execution of the plan of salvation required. 

1. The Tearhing of Jesus. — In the teaching of 
our Lord, as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels, for 
example, though there is certainly a new emphasis 
thrown on the Fatherhood of God, this is oy no 
means at the expense of His inlinite majesty and 
might, but provides only a more profound revela- 
tion of the character of 'the great King' (Mt .'5^), 
the 'Lord of heaven and earth' (Mt ll^^, Lk 10-'), 
according to whose good pleasure all that is comes 
to pass. He is spoken of, tliercfore, speciticallv as 
the 'heavenly Father' (Mt 5^' &^*-^-^- 15" 188■■'■23^ 
cf. 5'«- « 6'- » '7"- =' 10'2- 33 125» 10" 18»- '9, Mk 1 1-^- -•«, 
Lk 11") whose throne is in the heavens (Mt S^ 
23"), wliile the earth is but the footstool under 
His feet. There is no limitation admitted to the 
reach of His power, Avhether on the score of 
difficulty in the task, or insigniCeance in the 
object : the category of the impossible has no ex- 
istence to Him ' witli whom all things are possible' 
(Mt 9"-", Mk 10", Lk IS-'', Mt 22-^ Mk 12--" \i^), 
and the minutest occurrences are as directl5' con- 
trolled by Him as the greatest (Mt KP-s", Lk 12'). 
It is from Him that the sunshine and rain come 
(Mt 5"); it is He that clothes with beauty the 
flowers of the field (Mt 6-'), and who feeds the 
birds of the air (Mt 6-*) ; not a sparrow falls to 
the ground without Him, and the very hairs of 
our heads are numbered, and not one of them is 
forgotten by God (Mt 10-^, Lk 12-). There is, of, no denial, nor neglect, of the mechanism 
of natui'e implied here; there is only clear per- 
ception of the providence of God guiding nature 
in all its operations, and not nature only, but the 
life of the free spirit as well (Mt 6« S'^ 24-- 7', 
Mk 11^). Much less, however, is the care of God 
thought of as mechanical and purposeless. It was 
not simply of spaiTows tliat our Lord was thinking 
when He adverted to the care of the heavenly 
Father for them, as it was not simply for oxen 
that God was caring when He forbade them to be 
muzzled as they trod out the corn (1 Co 9') ; it 
was that they wlio are of more value than sparrows 
might learn with what confidence they might de- 
pend on the Father's hand. Thus a hierarchy of 
providence is uncovered for us, circle rising above 
circle, — first the wide order of nature, next the 
moral order of the world, lastly the order of salva- 
tion or of the kingdom of God, — a preformation 
of the dogmatic scliema of prnvidcntia gc7>cralis, 
speciality and specialissima. All these work to- 
gether for the one end of advancing the whole 
world-fabric to its goal ; for the care of the 
heavenly Father over the works of His hand is 
not merely to prevent the world that He has made 
from falling into pieces, and not merely to pre- 
serve His .servants from oppression by tfie evil of 
this world, but to lead the whole world and all 
that is in it onwards to the end which He has 
appointed for it, — to that 7raXi77f>'f<ria of heaven 
and earth to which, under His guiding hand, the 
whole creation tends (Mt 19^, Lk 20*^). 

In this divinely-led movement of ' this worM ' 
towards ' the world that is to come,' in whii b 
every element of the world's life has part, tha 
central place is naturally taken by the spiritua." 
preparation, or, in other words, by the develop 




ment of the Kingdom of God which reaches its 
coiiftuniination in the 'regeneration.' This King- 
dom, our Lord explains, is the heritage of tliose 
Messed ones for whom it has been prepared from 
tlie foundations of the worUl (Mt 2o", ef. 20-='). 
It is built up on earth througli a 'call' (Mt 9'^ 
Mk 2", Lk 5^-), which, however, as mere invitation 
IS inoperative (Mt 22-'", Lk 14'*'^), and is made 
eH'ective only by the exertion of a ctrtain ' con- 
straint ' on God's part (Lk 14^), — so that a dis- 
tinction emerges between the merely 'called 'and 
the really ' chosen ' (Mt 22"). The author of this 
'choice' is God (>Ik 1.3-"), wlio has chosen His 
elect (Lk 18', Mt 24--- ^-3', Mk IS""---) before the 
world, in accordance with His own pleasure, dis- 
tributing as He will of what is His own (Mt 
lu'*- '») ; so that the eli'ect of the call is already 
predetermined (Mt 13), all providence is ordered 
for the benetit of tlie elect (Mt 24-'-), and they 
are guarded from f.alling away (Mt 24-^), and, at 
the last day, are separated to their inheiitance 
prepared for them from all eternity (Mt 25*'). 
That, in all this process, the initiative is at every 
point taken by God, and no question can be enter- 
tained of precedent merit on the part of the 
recipients of the blei<sings, results not less from 
the whole underlying conception of God in His 
relation to the course of providence than from 
the details of the teaching itself. Every means 
is utilized, however, to enliance the sense of the 
free sovereignty of God in the bestowment of His 
Kingdom; it is 'the lost' whom Jesus comes to 
seek (Lk 19'"), and 'sinners' whom He came to 
call (Mk 2"); His truth is revealed only to 
'babes' (Mt 11^, Lk 10^'), and He gives' His 
teaching a special form just that it may be veiled 
from them to whom it is not directed (Mk 4"), 
distributing His benefits, independently of merit 
(Mt 20'""), to those who had been chosen bj' God 
therefor (Mk 13-"). 

In the discourses recorded by St. John the same 
essential spirit rules. Although, in accordance 
with the deeper theological apprehension of their 
reporter, the more metaphysical elements of Jesus' 
doctrine of God come here to fuller expression, it 
is nevertheless fundamentally the same doctrine of 
God that is displayed. Despite the even stronger 
emphasis thrown here on His Fatherhood, there is 
not the slightest obscuration of His inlinite ex- 
altation : Jesus lifts His eyes up whin He would 
seek Him (II'" 17'); it is in heaven that His 
house is to be found (14^); and thence proceeds 
all that comes from Him (P- 3'= gai. k. 33. m. 41. «. so 
6") ; 80 that God and heaven come to be almost 
equivalent terms. Is'or is there any obscuration 
of His ceaseless activity in governing the world 
(5"), although the stress is naturally thrown, in 
accordance with the whole character of this Gospel, 
on the moral and spiritual siiluof this government. 
But the very essence of the message of the .lohan- 
nine Jesus is that the will {OiX-n/xa) of the Katlier 
(43. 530 ^M.K>.40-;n <j;.i_ ^.f. 3" 5-' IT'" 21---^) is the 
principle of all things ; and more especially, of 
course, of the introduction of eternal life into 
this world of darkness and death. The conception 
of the world as lying in the evil one and therefore 
judged already (3"), so that upon those who are 
not removed from the evil of the worhl the wrath 
of God is not so much to be poured out as sinijily 
al.iiles (S-'o, cf. I .In 3'''), is liindiimental to this 
whole presentation. It is therefore, on the one 
hand, that Jesus represents Himself as having 
come not to condemn the world, Imt to save the 
world (3" 8'" 9° 12", cf. 4"), and all that Me <U>fH 
as having for its end the introduction of life into 
the world (ti-°-"); the already condemned world 
neetle<l no further eoiulemuatinn, it needed saving. 
Acd it is for the same reason, on the other hand, 

that lie represents the wicked world as incapable 
of coming to Him that it might have life (8" '-' 
14'" lU^j, and as requirin" first of all a 'drawing' 
from the Father to enable it to come (6"- ") ; so 
that only those hear or believe on Him who are ' of 
God'(S", cf. 15" 17"), who are 'of his sheep' (IG-''). 
There is undoubtedly a strong emphasis thrown 
on the universality of Christ's mission of salvation ; 
He has been sent into the world not merely to 
save some out of the world, but to save the world 
itself (3'« 6" 12" 17=', cf. 1-^ 1 Jn 4''' 2-). Hut 
this universalit3- of destination and eli'ect by which 
it is ' the world ' that is saved, does not imply the 
salvation of each and every individual in the world, 
even in the earlier stages of the developing salva- 
tion. On the contrary, the saving work is a pro- 
cess (17=") ; and, meanwhile, the coming of the Son 
into the world introduces a crisis, a sifting by 
which those who, because they are 'of God,' 'of 
his sheep,' are in the world, but not of it (l.")'" 
11"), are separated from those who are of the 
world, that is, of their father the devil (S*''), who 
is the I'rince of tliis world (12" 14»" l(i"). Obvi- 
ously, the dillerence between men that is thus 
manifested is not thought of as inhering, after a 
dualistic or semi-Gnostic fashion, in their very 
natures as such, or as instituted by their own 
self-framed or accidentally received dispositions, 
much less by their own conduct in the world, 
which is rather the result of it, — but, as already 
pointed out, .as the efi'ect of an act of God. Ail 
goes back to the will of God, to .accomplish which, 
the Son, as the .Sent One, has come ; and therefore 
also to the consentient will of the Son, who gives 
life, accordingly, to whom He will (5='). As no 
one can come to Him out of the evil world, excejit 
it be given him of the Father (6"', cf. 6**), so all 
that the Father gives Him (G"-^") and only such 
(O'"), come to Mini, being drawn thereunto by the 
Father (6"). Thus the Son'his own in the 
world' (13'), His 'chosen ones' (13'8 IS'"-'"), whom 
by His choice He has taken out of the world (Ij'" 
17'- '■*•'*); and for these only is His high-priestly 
intercession ofl'ered (17"), as to them only is eternal 
life communicated (10-'' 17'-', also S'"- ^ o-* 6''"- " 8'-). 
Thus, what the dogmatists call gratia prrBveniens 
is very strikingly taught ; and especial point is 
given to this teaching in the great declar.'itions as 
to the new birth recorded in Jn 3, from wliieh we 
le.'irn that the recreating Spirit comes, like the 
wind, without observation, and as He lists (3"), 
the mode of action by which the Father 'draws' 
men being thus uncovered for us. Of course this 
drawing is not to be thought of as proceeding in 
,■1 manner out of accord with man's nature as a 
I^isj'chic being; it naturally comes to its mani- 
lestation in an act of voluntary choice on man's 
own part, and in this sense it is ' psychological ' 
and not 'jihysical'; accordingly, though it be God 
that 'draws,' it is man that 'comes' (3=' 0''-'" 14"). 
There is no occasion for stumbling therefore in 
the ascription of 'will' and ' responsihility ' to 
man, or for puzzling over the designation of 'faith,' 
in which the ' coming ' takes eli'ect, as a ' work ' of 
man's ((>-■■'). Man is, of course, conceived as acting 
humanly, after the fashion of an intelligent and 
volunlary agent ; but behind all his action there 
is ever postulated the all-determining hand of tloil, 
to whose sovereign operation even the blindness 
of the unliidieving is attributed hy tin' evangelist 
(12^"'-), while the receiitivity to the light of those 
who believe is repeatedly in the most emphatic 
way ascribed by Jesus Himself to God alone. 
Although with little use of the terminology in 
which we have been accustomed to expect to see 
the doctrines of the decree and of election ex 
pressed, the substance of these doctrines is her' 
set out in the most impressive waj'. 




From the two 9et« of data provided by the Synoptista and 
St. John, it is possible to attain c^aite* a clear insif^'ht into 
the conception oi predestination as it lay in our Lord's teach- 
ini;. It is quit( certain, for example, that there is no place in 
this teachiin; for a ' predestination ' that is carefully adjusted 
to the foreseen performances of the creature : and as little 
for a 'decree' which may be frustrated by creaturely action, 
or an ' election ' which is ffiven elVect only by the creaturely 
choice : to our Lord the Vather is the omnipotent Lord of 
heaven and earth, according to whose pleasure all tliin^cs are 
ordered, and who jrives the Kinj^dom to whom He will (Lk 
123J, silt ii«, Lk 10-1). Certainly it is the very heart of our 
Lord's teaching that the Father's good pleasure is a gwd 
pleasure, ethically riglit, and the issue of infinite love ; the 
very name of Father as the name of God by preference on 
His lips is full of this conception ; but the very nerve of this 
teaching is, that the Father s will is all-embracing and omnip- 
otent. It is only therefore that His children need be careful 
for nothing, that the little fiock need not fear, that His elect 
may be assured that none of them shall be lost, but all that 
the Father lias jriveii Him shall be raised up at the l:ist day. 
And if thus the elective purpose of the Father cannot fail of 
its end, neither is it possiVilc to find this end in anything less 
than 'salvation' in the highest sense, than entrance into that 
eternal life to communicate which to <iying men our Lord 
came into tiie worl(L There are elections to other ends, to be 
sure, spoken of; notably there is the election of the apostles to 
their otiice (Lk O's, Jn C"0) ; and Christ Himself is conceived 
as especially God's elect one, iiecause no one has the service to 
render wliich He has (Lk 9» 23^). But the elect, by way of 
eminence: 'the elect whom God elected,' for whose sake He 
governs all history (Mk IS™); the elect of whom it was the 
will of Him who sent the Son, that of all that He gave Him 
He should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last d.ay 
(Jn (P'J) ; the elect whom the Son of .Man shall at the last day- 
gather from the four winds, from the uttermost parts of the 
earth to the uttermost part of heaven (.Mk 1327) ; it would be in- 
adequate to that these are elected merely to opportuni- 
ties or tile means of grace, on their free cultivation of which 
shall depend their undecided destiny ; or merely to the service 
of their fellow-men, as agents in God's beneficent plan for the 
salvation of the race. Of course this election is to privileges 
and means of grace ; and without these the great end of the 
election would not be attained: for the 'election' is given 
effect only by the 'call,' and manifests itself only in faith and 
the holy Ufe. Equally of course the elect are 'the salt of tlie 
earth' and 'the light of the world,' the few through whom the 
many are blessed ; the eternal life to which they are elected 
does not consist in or with the silence and coldness of death, 
but only in and with the intensest activities of the conquering 
people of God. But the prime end of their election does not 
lie in these things, and to pKace exclusive stress upon them is 
certainly to gather in the mint and anise and cummin of the 
doctrine. That to which God's elect are elected is, according 
to the teaching of Jesus, all that is included in the idea of the 
Kingdom of God, in the idea of eternal life, in the idea of 
fellowship with Christ, in the idea of participation in the 
glory which the Father has given His Son. Their choice, 
and the whole development of their history, according to our 
Lord's teaching, is the loN-ing work of the Father: and in His 
keeping also is the consummation of their bliss. Their segrega- 
tion, of c.'urse, leaves others not elected, to whom none of their 
privileges are granted ; from whom none of their services are 
expected ; with whom their (glorious destiny is not shared. 
This, too, is of God. But this side of the matter, in accordance 
with Jesus' mission in the world as Saviour rather than as 
Judge, is less dwelt upon. In the case of neither class, that 
of the elect as little as that of those that are without, are the 
purposes of God wrought out without the co-operation of the 
activities of the subjects ; but in neither case is the decisive 
factor supplied by these, but is discoverable solely in the will uf 
God anil the consonant will of the Son. The ' even so, Father • 
(or so it seemed good in thy sight' (Mt 1126, Lk lo^i), is to our 
Lord, at least, an all. sufficient theodicy in the face of all God's 
diverse dealings with men. 

2. The Teaching of the Disciples.— The disciples 
of Jesus continue His teachin',' in all its elements. 
We are conscious, for exaniiik-, of entering no new 
atmosphere wlien we pass to the Epistle of James. 
St. James, too, finds his starting-point, in a profound 
apprehension of the exaltation and perfection of 
God,— delining God's nature, indeed, with a phrase 
that merely repeats in other words the penetrating 
declar.'Uion that ' Ood is light' (1 Jn I''), wliich" 
reflecting our Lord's teaching, sounds tlie keynote 
of the heloved di.sciple's thought of God (Ja 1"), — 
and particularly in a keen sense of dependence on 
God (4" 5'), to which it was an axiom that every 
good thing is a gift from Ilim (1"). Accordingly, 
salvation, the pre-eminent good, comes purely as 
His ^ift, and can be ascribed only to His will (1") ; 
and its exclusively Divine origin is indicated by 
the choice tliat is made of those wlio receive it — 
not the rich and prosperous, who have somewhat 

perhaps wliich might command consideration, but 
the poor and miserable (2'). So little does this 
Divine choice rest on even faith, that it is rather 
in order to faith (2''>), and introduces its recipients 
into the Kingdom as firstfiuits of a great harvest 
to be reaped oy God in the world (1'*). 

Similarly, in the Book of Acts, the whole stress in 
the matter of salvation is laid on the grace of God 
(1123 i3« 143.26 1540 1S27). ^,^^1 t,j it^ in the most 

pointed waj-, the inception of faith itself is assigned 
(18-''). It is only .slightly varied language when 
the increase in tiie Church is ascribed to the hand 
of the Lord (IP'), or the direct act of God (14*" 
18'°). The explicit declaration of 2" presents, 
therefore, nothing peculiar, and we are fully pre- 
pared for the philosoplij' of the redemptive history 
expressed in lo'", tliat only those ' ordained to 
eternal life ' believed — the believing that comes by 
the grace of God (IS"), to whom it belongs to open 
the heart to give heed to the gospel (Ki"), being 
thus referred to the counsel of eternity, of which 
the events of time are only the outworking. 

The general philosophy of histor}- thus suggested 
is implicit in the very idea of a promissory system, 
and in the recognition of a predictive element in 
prophecy, and is written large on the pages of the 
historical books of the NT. It is given expression 
in every declaration that this or that event came 
to pass 'that it might be fulhlled which was spoken 
by the prophets,' — a form of statement in which 
our Lord liad.Himself betrayed His teleological view 
of history, not only as respects details (Jn 15-^ 17'-), 
but with the widest reference (Lk 21--'), and which 
■Nvas taken up cordially bj' His followers, particu- 
larly by Matthew (1~ 2'i>- ''» 4''' 8'' 12" 13^' 21^ 26"*, 
Jn 12» 18» 19«-28.36). Alongside of this phrase 
occurs the equally significant 'Set of the Divine 
decree,' as it has been appropriately called, by 
which is suggested the necessity which rules o\ er 
historical sequences. It is used with a view now to 
Jesu.s' own plan of redemption (by Jesus Ilim.self, 
Mt 8=', Lk •2« 4'^ 9-2 13*i 17'^ '-'4", Jn 3" 10>« 12»^ ; 
by the evangelist, Mt 16-'), now to the underlying 
plan of God (by Jesus, Mt 24", Mk 13'- '", Lk 21"; 
by the writer, Mt 17'°, Mk 9", Ac 3^' 9'"), anon to 
the prophetic declaration as an indication of the 
underlying plan (by Jesus, Mt 26^", Lk 2-2^ 04M.U. 
by the writer, Jn 20", Ac 1"* 17'). This appeal, in 
either form, served an important apologetic pur- 
pose in the first proclamation of the gospel ; but 
its fundamental significance is rooted, of course, in 
the conception of a Divine ordering of the whole 
course of history to the veriest detail. 

Such a teleological conception of the history of 
the Kingdom is manifested strikingly in the speech 
of St. Stephen (Ac 7), in which the developing 
plan of God is rapidly sketched. But it is in such 
declarations as those of St. Peter recorded in Ac 
023 428 ii^g^i the wider philosophy of history comes 
to its clearest expression. In them everything 
that had befallen Jesus is represented as merely 
the emerging into fact of what had stood before- 
hand prepared for in ' the determinate counsel and 
foreknowledge of God,' so that nothing had been 
accomplished, by whatever agents, except wliat 
' his hand and his counsel had foreordained to 
come to pass.' It would not be easy to frame 
language which should more explicitly proclaim 
the conception of an all -determining decree of 
God governing the entire sequence of events in 
time. Elsewhere in the Petrine discourses of Acta 
the speech is coloured by the same ideas : we 
note in the immediate context of these culmin- 
ating passages the high terms in which the exalta- 
tion 01 God is expressed (4-'"-), the sharpness with 
which His sovereignty in the ' call ' (■n-poi!Kn\(oiiai) 
is declared (2™), and elsewhere the repeated emerg. 
ence of the idea of the necessary corresponilenct 




of the events of time witli the predictions of 
Scriiiture (1'" 2^ 3^). The same doctrine of pre- 
destination meets us in the pages of Ht. Peter's 
Epistles. He does, indeed, speak of the members 
of the Christian community as God's elect (I 1' 2" 
5", II 1'°), in accordance with the apostolic habit 
of assuming the reality implied in the manifesta- 
tion ; but this is so far from importing that election 
hangs on tlie act of man that St. Peter refers it 
directl3' to the elective foreknowledge of God (I 1^), 
and seeks its conhrniation in sanctification (II l'"), 
— even as the stumbling of the disobedient, on tlie 
other hand, is presented as a confirmation of their 
appointment to disbelief (I 2*). The pregnant use 
of the terms ' foreknow ' ( and ' fore- 
knowledge' (irpliyvwaLi) by St. Peter brought to our 
attention in these pa.ssages(Ac 2-', 1 P !-•-"), where 
they certainly convey the sense of a loving, dis- 
tinguishing regard which assimilates them to the 
idea of election, is worthy of note as another of 
the traits common to him and St. Paul (Ro 8™ 11-, 
only in NT). The usage might be explained, in- 
deed, as the development of a purely Greek sense 
of the words, but it is much more probably rooted 
in a Semitic usage, which, as we have seen, is not 
without example in OT. A simple comparison of 
the passages will exhibit the impossibility of read- 
ing the terms of mere prevision (cf. Cremer sub 
voc, and especially the full discussion in K. 
Miiller's Die Gottliche Zuvorersehung unci Enoiih- 
lung, etc. pp. 38 f., 81 f . ; also Gennrich, SK, 1898, 
382-395 ; Pfleiderer, Urchri-Henthum, 289, Paulin- 
ismus, 268 ; and Lorenz, Lehrxystem, ett. 94). 

The teaching of St. John in Gospel ami Epistle 
is not distinguisnable from that which he reports 
from his Master's lips, and need aot here be re- 
verted to afresh. Ihe same fundamental view- 
points meet us also in the Aijocalj-pse. The 
emj-hti'i.a there placed on the omnipotence of God 
rises Indeed to a climax. There only in NT (except 
2 Co 6"), for example, is the epitliet nafroKpdrup 
ascribed to Him (1« 4« U" 15" 16'- " 19«- " 21--, cf. 
15* 6"") ; and the whole purport of the book is the 
portrayal of the Divine guidance of history, and 
the very essence of its message that, despite all 
surface appearances, it is the hand of God that 
really directs all occurrences, and all things are 
hastening to the end of His determining. Salva- 
tion is ascribed unvaryingly to the grace of God, and 
declared to be His work (12'" 19'). The elect people 
of God are His by the Divine choice alone: their 
names are from the foundation of the world written 
in the Lamb's Book of Life (13« 17' 20'2-i» 21--), 
which is certainly a symbol of Divine appointment 
to eternal life revealed in and realized through 
Christ ; nor shall they ever be blotted out of it ('■i''). 
It is diflicult to doubt that the destination here 
a.sserted is to a complete salvation (19'), that it is 
individual, and that it is but a single instance of 
the com] of the Divine government to 
which the world is subject by the Lord of lords 
and King of kings, the Ruler of the earth and 
King of the nations, whose control of all the 
occurrences of time in accordance with His holy 
purposes it is the supreme object of this book to 

Perhaps is directly said about the purjiosc 
of God in the Epi>!tle to the Hebrews than in any 
other portion of NT of equal length. The technical 
phra.seol()gy of the subject is consi)iciiously absent. 
Nevertheless, the conception of the Divine counsel 
and will underlying all that comes to pass (2'°), 
and especially the entire course of the purchase 
(6", cf. If)*" 2») and ni.pli.ation (ll'-'-sl g") ,.f 
salvation, is fundaiiicntal to the whole tlioiigbt of 
the Epistle; and echoes of the modes in which tliis 
conception is elsewhere expressed meet us on i^vcry 
hand. Thus we read of God's eternal counsel 

(/SouXt), C") and of His precedent will (d{\r)iui, 10'") as 
underlying His redemptive acts; of the enrolment 
of the names of His children in heaven (12^) ; of 
the origin in the energy of God of all that is good 
in us (13-'); and, above all, of a 'heavenly call' 
as the source of the whole renewed life of the 
Christian (3', cf. 9"). 

When our Lord spoke of * calling ' {xotknu, Mt 9'3, Mk 2*7, hk 
C^, and, panibolically, Mt aa- -i 5- a, Lk 148. 8. 10. 12. 13. l(i, n. 21 ; 
xXviTo;, Mt '2-.i'i ["Jolt*]) the tcnn was used in the ordinary sense 
of ' invitation," and refers therefore to a much tiroader circle 
than the 'elect' (Mt2;;l'*); and this fundamental sense of 
' Itiddin^' ' niav continue to cling to the term in the hands 01 the 
evangelists (Mt 4'-i, Mk 12", of. Lk U', Jtt ^2), while the depth 
of meaning which might be attached to it, even in such a 
connotation, may he revealed by such a passage as Rev lJ)y 
• Blessed are they which are bidden to the marriage supper of 
the Lamb.' On the lips of the apostolic writers, however, the 
term in its application to the call of God to salvation took 
on deeper meanings, doubtless out of consideration of the 
author of the call, who but to speak and it is done (cf. Ho 
4'7). It occurs in these writers, when it occurs at all, as the 
synonym no longer of 'invitation,' but rather of 'election' 
itself ; or, more precisely, as e.vj)ressive of the temporal .act of 
the Divine etliciency by which elTect is given to the electing 
decree. In this profounder sense it is practically confined to 
the writings of St. I'aul and St. Peter and the lipistle to the 
Hebrews, occurring elsewhere only in Jude 1, Rev 17'^, where 
the children of God are designated the ' called,' just as they are 
(in various collocations of the tenu with the idea of election) 
in Ro 16. -, 1 Co r-i, Ko S2S, 1 Co 124 ^a. Uo 1', 1 Co 1'). K>.,t«, 
OS used in these passages, does not occur in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, but in 3' x>.^.fftt occurs in a sense indistinguishable 
from that which it bears in St. l>aul (Ro llS, 1 Co 13", Eph I'H 
41- 4, I'll 3'4, -l Th 111, 3 Ti 19) and St. Peter (-2 P I'O) ; and in 9'» 
(cf. special applications of the same general idea, 5-* lis), xaxi^ 
bears the same deep sense exiiressed bv it in St. Paul (Ro 830-30 

911-24, 1 Co 19 716. 17. 18. 18.20. 'a. a, Gal 16.16 58.13, Eph 

41.4, Col 315, 1 Th '212 4' 624, 2 Th 2", 2 Ti I'J) and in St. Peter 
(1115 ■2!i.2i 3U 510, 1113, cf. TM»5«<xi«,, Ac 239. and in the 
language of St. Luke, Ac 132 iglO). The contrast into which the 
'called '(3') are brought in this E]tistle with the * evangelized* 
(42. 6), repeating in other terms the contrast which our Saviour 
institutes between the 'elect' and 'called* (Mt 2214), exhibits 
the height of the meaning to which the idea of the 'call' has 
climbed. It no longer denotes the mere invit-ition, — that notion 
is now given in 'evangelize,' — hut the actual ushering into 
salvation of the heirs of the promise, who are made partakers 
of the heavenly calling, and are called to the everlasting in- 
heritance just because they have been destined thereunto by 
God (1'4), and are enrolled in heaven as the children given to 
the Son of God (2'3). 

3. The Teaching of St. Paul. — It was reserved, 
however, to the Apostle Paul to give to the fact of 
predestination its fullest NT presentation. This 
was not because St. Paul exceeded his fellows in 
the strength or clearness of his convictions, but 
because, in the prosecution of the special task 
which was committed to him in the general work 
of establishing Christianity in the world, the com- 
jdete expression of the common doctrine of pre- 
destination fell in his way, and became a necessity 
of his arguiiunt. With him, too, the roots of his 
doctrine of predestination were set in his general 
doctrine of God, and it was fundamentally because 
St. Paul was a theist of a clear and consistent 
tj'pe, living and thinking under the inllucnce of the 
profound consciousness of a personal God who is 
the author of all that is and, as well, the upholder 
and powerful governor of all that He has made, 
according to whose will, thurofore, all that comes 
to pass must be ordered, that he was a predesti- 
naiian ; and more particularly he too was a pre- 
destinarian because of his general doctrine of 
salvation, in every step of which the initiative 
must be taken by God's unmerited grace, just 
because man is a sinner, and, as a sinner, rests 
under the Divine condemnation, with no right 
of so much as access to God, and without means 
to seek, much less to secure, His favour. But 
although pos.sessing no other sense of the infinite 
majesty of the almighty I'erson in whose hands 
all things lie, or of the issue of all saving ai'ts 
from His free grace, than his companion ajiostles, 
the course of the sjiecial work in which St. Paul 
was engaged, and the exigencies of the .special 
conlroveisicB in which he was involved, forced him 




to a fuller expression of all that is implied in 
these convictions. As he cleared the whole held 
of Christian f.iitli from the presence of any re- 
maining conHilence in Inuiian works ; as he laid 
licneath tlie hope of Cluistians a righteousness not 
self-wrought but provided by God alone ; as he 
consistently oll'cred this Goil-provided righteous- 
ness to sinners of all classes without regard to 
anything in them by which they might fancy God 
could be moved to accept their persons, — he was 
inevitably driven to an especially jiervasive refer- 
ence of salvation in each ot its elements to tlie free 
grace of God, and to an especially full exposition 
on the one hand of the course of Divine grace 
in the several acts which enter into the saving 
work, and on the other to the firm rooting of the 
whole process in the pure will of the God of grace. 
From the beginning to the end of his ministry, 
accordingly, St. Paul conceived himself, above 
everything else, as the bearer of a message of 
undeserved grace to lost sinners, not even directing 
his own footsteps to carry the glad tidings to 
whom he would (Ro V, 1 Co 4", 2 Co 2'°-), but 
rather led by God in triumphal procession through 
the world, that throuojh him might be made mani- 
fest the savour of tlie knowledge of Christ in every 
jilace — a savour from life unto life in them that 
are saved, and from death unto death in thera 
that are lost (2 Co 2"- '»). By the ' word of the 
cross ' proclaimed by him the essential character 
of his hearers was thus brouglit into manifestation, 
— to the lost it was foolishness, to the saved the 
power of God (1 Co 1'*) : not as if this essential 
character belonged to them by nature or was the 
prod>u:t of their own activities, least of all of 
their choice at the moment of the proclamation, by 
which rather it was only revealed; but as finding 
in ex])lauation only in an act of God, in accord- 
ince with the working of Him to whom all ditier- 
ences among men are to be ascribed (1 Co 4') — 
for God alone is the Lord of the harvest, and all 
the increase, however diligently man may plant 
and water, is to be accredited to Him alone 
(1 Co 3«-). 

It is naturally the soteriological interest that 
determines in the main St. Paul's allusions to the 
all-determining hand of God, — the letters that we 
have from him come from Paul the evangelist, — but 
it is not merely a soteriological conception that he 
is expressing in them, but the most fundamental 
postulate of his religious consciousness ; and he is 
accordingly constantly correlating his doctrine of 
election with his general doctrine of the decree or 
counsel of God. No man ever had an intenser or 
more vital sense of God, — the eternal (Ro 16-*) and 
incorruptible (l'-'') One, the only wise One (10-'), 
who does all things according to His good-i)leasure 
(1 Co lo'* 1218, Col 1'9-"), and whose ways are 
past tracing out (Ro U") ; before whom men 
.should therefore bow in the humility of absolute 
dependence, recognizing in Him the one moulding 
power as well in history as in the life of the 
individual (Ro 9). Of Him and through Him and 
unto Him, he fervently exclaims, are all things 
(Ko 11^, cf. 1 Co 8») ; lie is over all and through 
all and in all (Eph 4«, cf. Col 1") ; He worketh all 
things according to the counsel of His will (Eph 
1") : all that is, in a word, owes its existence and 
persistence and its action and issue to Him. The 
whole course of historv is, therefore, of His order- 
ing (Ac H" IT-*, Ro"l'»'; 3-^ 9-11, Gal 3. 4), and 
every event that befalls is under His control, and 
must be estimated from the view-point of His pur- 
poses of good to His people (Ro 8'-'', 1 Th 5"- '*), for 
whose benefit tlie whole world is governed (Eph l-^-, 
1 Co 2\ Col l'»). The figure that is employed in 
Ro 9-^ with a somewhat narrower reference, would 
fairly express St. Paul's world-view in its relation 

to the Divine activity : God is the potter, and the 
whole world with all its contents but as the plastic 
clay which He moulds to His own ends ; so that 
whatsoever comes into being, and whatsoever uses 
are served by the things that exist, are all alike of 
Him. In accordance with this world - view St. 
Paul's doctrine of salvation must necessarily be 
interpreted ; and, in very fact, he gives it its 
accordant expression in every instance in which 
he speaks of it. 

There are especially three chief pnssarjes in M-hich 
the apostle so fully expounds his ftinilamental 
teaching as to the relation of salvation to the 
purpose of God, that they may fairly claim our 
primary attention. 

(a) l^he first of these — Ro 8®- "'—emerges as part 
of the encouragement which the apostle offers to 
his readers in the sad state in which thej- find 
themselves in this world, afilicted with fears 
within and fightings without. He reminds them 
that they are not left to their weakness, but the 
Spirit comes to their aid: 'and we know,' adds 
the apostle.^it is no matter of conjecture, but of 
assured knowledge, — ' that with them that love 
God, God co-operates with respect to all things for 
good, since they are indeed tiie called according 
to [His] purpose.' The appeal is obviously pri- 
marily to the universal government of God : 
nothing takes place save by His direction, and 
even what seems to be grievous comes fiom the 
Father's hand. Secondarily, the appeal is to the 
assured position of his readers within the fatherly 
care of God : they have not come into this blessed 
relation with God accidentally or by the force of 
their own choice ; they have been 'called' into it 
by Himself, and that by no thoughtless, inad- 
vertent, meaningless, or changeable call ; it was a 
call 'according to purpose,' — where the anar- 
throusness of the noun throws stress on the pur- 
posiveness of the call. What has been denominated 
' the golden chain of salvation ' that is attached 
to this declaration by the particle ' because ' can 
therefore have no otlier end than more fully to 
develop and more firmly to ground the assurance 
thus (quickened in the hearts of the readers : it 
accordingly enumerates the steps of the saving 
process in the purpose of God, and carries it thus 
successively through the stages of appropriating 
foreknowledge, — for ' foreknow ' is undoubtedly 
used here in that pregnant sense we have already 
seen it to bear in similar connexions in NT,— pre- 
destination to conformity with tlie image of God's 
Son, calling, justifying, glorifying ; all of which 
are cast in the past tense of a purjiose in principle 
executed when formed, and are bound together aa 
mutually Lm]]licative, so that, where one is present, 
all are in principle present with it. It accordingly 
follows that, in St. Paul's conception, glorifica- 
tion rests on justification, which in turn rests on 
vocation, while vocation comes only to those who 
had previou.sly been predestinated to conformity 
with (iod's Son, and this predestination to ch.aracter 
and destiny only to those afore chosen by God a 
loving regard. It is obviously a strict doctrine of 
predestiiiiition that is taught. This conclusion can 
be avoided only by assigning a sense to the ' fore- 
knowing' that lies at the root of the whole process, 
which is certainly out of accord not merely with 
its ordinary import in similar connexions in the 
NT, nor merely with the context, but with the 
very purpose for which the declaration is made, 
namely, to enhearten the struggling saint by 
assuring him that he is not committed to his 
own power, or rather weakness, but is in the sure 
hands of the Almighty Father. It would seem 
little short of absurd to hang on the merely con- 
templative foresight of God a declaration adduced 
to support the assertion that the lovers of tlod 




are something deeper and finer than even lovers of 
God, namely, * the called according to purpose^* 
and itself educing the joyful cry, * If God is fur us, 
who is ajrainst us?' and grounding a conlident 
cl.iim upon the gift of all tilings from His hands. 

(h) The even more famous section, Ro 9. 10. 11, 
following closely upon this strong allirmation of 
the suspension of the whole saving process on the 
predetermination of God, oflers, on the face of it, 
a yet sharper assertion of predestination, raising 
it. moreover, out of the circle of tlie merely in- 
dividual salvation into the broader region of the 
histoi'ical development of the kingdom of God. 
The problem wliich St. Paul here faces grew so 
directly out of his fundamental doctrine of justi- 
tiiatiou by faith alone, with complete disregard 
of all question of merit or vested privilege, that 
it must have often forced itself upon his atten- 
tion, — himself a Jew with a higli estimate of 
a .lew's privileges and a passionate love for his 
people. He could not but iiave pcmdered it fre- 
q«»;iitly and deeply, and least of all could he have 
failed to give it treatment in an Epistle like this, 
which undertakes to provide a somewhat formal 
exposition of his whole doctrine of justiiication. 
Having shown the necessity of such a method of 
salvation as he jToclaimed, if sinful men were to be 
saved at all (1*"*-;P'), and then exptiunded its nature 
and evidence (3-^-5-'), and afterwards discussed its 
intensive ellccts (G'-8'^), he could not fail furtiicr 
to explain its extensive eHecta — especially when 
they appeared to be of so portentous a character as 
to imply a reversal of what was widely believed to 
have lieen God's mode of working heretofore, the 
rejection of His people whom lie foreknew, and the 
substitution of tlie alien in tlieir place. St. Paul's 
solution of the problem is, brieHy, that tlie situa- 
tion has been gravely misconceived by those wlio 
80 represent it; that nothing of the sort thus 
described has happened or will happen ; that 
wliat has lia|)|)ened is merely tliat in the consti- 
tution of that people whom He lias chosen to 
Himself and is fashioning to His will, God has 
again exercised that sovereignty which He had 
previously often exercised, and which He had 
always expressly reserved to Himself and fre- 
quently proclaimed as the nrinciple of His dealings 
with the people emphatically of His choice. In his 
exposition of this solution St. Paul lirst defends the 
propriety of God's action (O^^^), then turns to stop 
the mouth of the objecting Jew by exposing tlio 
manifested unfitness of the Jewish people for the 
kingdom (9^-10-'), and tinally expounds with great 
ricliness theamelioratingcircumstanccsinthewliole 
transaction (IP^^'*). In the course of his defence 
of God's rejection of the mass of contemporary 
Israel, he sets forth the sovereignty of God in the 
whole matter of salvation — * that the purpose of 
God according to electi<m might stand, not of 
works, but of Him tiiat calleth'— with a sharpness 
of assertion and a clearness of illustration wliieh 
leave nothing to be added in order to tlirow it out 
in tlie full strength of it? conception. We are 
jpointed illustratively to the sovereign acceptance 
of Isaac and rejection of Ishmael, and to the 
choice of Jacob and not of Esau before their birth 
and therefore before either had done good or bad ; 
we are explicitly told that in the matter of salva- 
tion it is M<»t of him that wills, or of him that runs, 
but of God tliat shows mercj', and that lias mercy 
on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens; 
we are pointedly directed to behold in (iod the 
potter who makes the vessels which jirix-eed from 
His hand each for an end of His a])pointmcnt, that 
He may work out His Mill upon theiii. It is safe 
to say that language cannot bo chosen better 
adapted to teach predestination at its height. 

We arc exhorted, indeed, not to read this lan^^of e in isolation. 

but to remember tbat the ninth chapter must be interpreted in 
the lipht of the eleventh. Not to ilweil on the equally im- 
portant coiisidL-raiion that the eleventh chapter must hKcwise 
be inttrj^i'eted only in the light of the ninth, thcru ^ecnis heie 
to exhibit itself Bonie forjjetfultiess of the inht-rcut toiaiiiuiiv 
of St. Paul's thought, and, indeed, some niisconcfplion ot 
the progress of tiie aritrument through the section, which is n 
compact wliole and must express u much pumiered line o( 
thouij'ht, constantly present to tlie apostle's mind. We umst not 
permit to fall out of sight the fact that the whole extremity of 
assertion of the ninth chapter is repeated in the eleventh (IH"'); 
80 that there is no change of conc-ption or lapse of consecution 
observable as the argument develops, and we do not escape from 
the doctrine of predestination of the ninth chapter in fleeing 
to the eleventh. Tliis is true even if we go at once to the great 
closing declaration of W-^'^y to which we are often directed as to 
the key of the whole section — which, indeed, it very nmch is : 
'For (iod hath shut up all unto disobedience, that he might 
have mercy upon all.' On the face of it there could not readily 
be framed a more explicit assertion of the Divine control anrl tlie 
Divine initiative than this; it is only another declaration that 
He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and after the 
manner and in the order that He will. And it certainly is not 
possible to read it as a declaration ot universal salvation, and 
thus reduce the whole preceding exi>08ition to a mere tracing 
of the varying pathways along which the conunon Father leads 
each individual ot the race severally to the common goal. 
Needless to point out that thus the wliole argument would be 
stultilied, and the apostle convicted of gross exaggeration in 
tone and language where otherwise we find only ini}>res>i\e 
solenmiLy, rising at times into natural anguish. It is enough 
to observe that the verse cannot bear this sense in its context. 
Nothing is clearerithan that its purpose is not to minimise but 
to magnify the sense of absolute dependence on the Divine 
mercy, and to quicken apprehension of the mystery of God's 
righteously loving ways ; and nothing is clearer tlian that the 
reference of the double 'all' is exliausted by the two clashes 
discussed in the immediate context,— so that they are noi to 
be taken individualistically but, so to speak, racially. The 
intrusion of the individualistie-universalistic sentiment, so 
dominant in the modern consciousness, into the interpretation 
of this section, indeed, is to throw tlie whole into inextriLahle 
confusion. Nothing could be further from the nationalist ic- 
universalistic ]»oint of view from which it vvas written, and ti'om 
which alone St. Paul can be understoocl when he represents that 
in rejecting the mass of contemporary Jews God has not cast olT 
His people, but, acting only as He had frequently done in former 
ages, is fulfllling His ]>romise to the kernel while BhelHiig of! 
the liusk. Througliout the whole process of pruning and in- 
grafting which he traces in the dealings of God with the olive- 
tree which He has once for all planted, St. Paul sees God. in 
accordance with His promise, saving His people. The continuity 
of its stream of life he perceives preservea throughout all it« 
present experience of rejection (llii^); the gracious purpose ol 
the present confinement of it-s channel, he tract-s with eagei 
hand (lim^); he predicts with confidence the attainment in 
the end of the full breadth of the promise (lU^-^s),— all to the 
praise of the glory of God's grace (1133-^6). There is un- 
doubtedlj' a univerKalism of salvation proclaimed here ; but it 
is an eschatological, not an individualistic universalism. The 
day is certainly to come when the whole world—inclusive of all 
the Jews and Gentiles alike, then dwellin''- on the globe — shall 
know and servo the Lord ; and God in all His strange work ol 
distributing salvation is leading the course of events to that 
great goal ; but meanwhile the principle of His action is free, 
sovereign grace, to which alone it is to be attributed that any 
who are saved in the meantime enter into their inheritaiK-e, 
and through which alone shall the final goal of the race itself he 
attained. The central thought of the whole discussion, in a 
word, is that Israel does not owe the promise to the fact that it 
is Israel, hut conversely owes the fact that it is Israel to the 
promise,— that * it is not the children of the fiesh that are the 
children of God, but the children of the promise that are 
reckoned for a seed ' (93). In these words we hold the real key 
to the whole section; and if we approach it with this key in hand 
we shall have tittle dilKciilty in a]>prehcnding that, from its 
beginning to its end, St. Paul has no higher object than to make 
clear that the inclusion of any individual williin the kingdom 
of God finds its hoIc cause in the sovereign grace of the chuosinn: 
God, and cannot in any way or degree depend upon his own 
merit, privilege, or act. 

Neither, with this key in our hand, will it be possible to 
raise a (question whether the election here expounded is to 
eternal hfe or not rather merely to prior privilege or higher 
service. These too, no doubt, are included. Hut l>y what 
right is this long section intruded liere as a substantive part 
of tliis Epistle, busied as a whole with the exposition of 'tlie 
power of God unto salvation to every one that bclievelh, to the 
Jew first and also to the Greek,' if it has no direct concern with 
this salvation? Ily what chance lias it attached it*<elf to that 
noble grounding of a Christian's hope and assurance with which 
the eighth chapter closes? Uy what course of thought does il 
rea<-ii its own culmination in that l)Ui'8t of pniise to God, on 
whom all things cli-pcnd, with which it concludes? By what 
accident is it itself filled with the most unequivocal references 
to the saving grace of God 'which hath been poured out on 
the vessels of bis mercy which he afore prepared for glory, 
even on us whom he also called, not from the Jews only, hut 
also from the Gentiles' V If such language boa no reference tc 
salvation, there Is no language in the NT that need be inter 
pretcd of final dcetlny. Beyond question this section don 




explain to us some of the grounds of the mode of God's action 
in patliering a people to Himself out of tlie world ; and in 
doin)^ this, it does reveal to us souie of the ways in which the 
distributiun of Uis eleeliiig grace serves the purposes of His 
kingdom on earth ; readin<j it, we certainly do Icam that God 
has many ends to serve in His gracious dealings with the 
children of men, and that we, in our ignorance of His multi- 
farious purposes, are not fitted to be His counsellors. But by 
alt this, the iact is in no wise obscured that it is primarily to 
salvation that Ho calls His elect, and that whatever other ends 
their election may subserve, this fundamental end will never 
^xil ; that in this, too, the gifts and calling of God are not 
.epented of, and will surely lead on to their goal. The diffi- 
culty which is felt by some in following the apostle's argument 
here, we may suspect, has its roots in part in a shrinking from 
what appears to them an arbitrary assignment of men to 
diverse destinies without considerat^ion of their desert. Cer- 
tainly St. Paul as explicitly artirms the sovereignty of repro- 
bation as of election, — if these twin ideas are, indeed, separable 
even in thought: if he represents God as sovereignly loving 
Jacob, he represents Him equally as sovereignly hating Esau ; 
if he declares that He has mercy on whom He will, he equally 
declares that He hardens whom He will. Doubtless the difh- 
culty often felt here is, in part, an outgrowth of an insufficient 
realization of St. Paul's basal conception of the state of men 
at large as condemned sinners before an angry God. It is with 
a world of lost sinners he is representing God as dealing ; 
and out of that world building up a Kingdom of Grace. Were 
not all men sinners, there might still be an election, as sove- 
reign as now ; and there being an election, there would still be 
as sovereign a rejection : but the rejection would not be a 
rejection to punishment, to destruction, to eternal death, but 
to some other destiny consonant to the state in which those 
passed by should be left. It is not indeed, then, because men 
are sinners that men are left unelected ; election is free, and 
Its obverse of rejection must be equally free : but it is solely 
because men are sinners that what they are left to is destruc- 
tion. And it is in this universalism of ruin rather than in a 
universalism of salvation that St. Paul really roots his theodicy. 
When all deserve death it is a marvel of pure grace that any 
receive life ; and who shall gainsaj' the right of Him who shows 
this miraculous mercy, to have mercy on whom He will, and 
whom He will to harden ? (See Bkfrobatk). 

(c) In Eph 11-12 there is, if possible, an even 
higher note struck. Here, too, St. Paul is dealing 
primarily with the blessings bestowed on his 
readers, in Christ, all of which he ascribes to the 
free grace of God ; but he so speaks of these 
blessings as to correlate the gracious purpose of 
God in salvation, not merely with the plan of 
operation which He prosecutes in establishing and 
perfecting His kingdom on earth, but also wth 
the all-embracing decree that underlies His total 
cosmical activity. In opening this circular letter, 
addressed to no particular community whose special 
circumstances might suggest the theme of the 
thanksgiving witli which he customarily begins 
his letters, St. Paul is thrown back on what is 
common to Christians ; and it is probably to this 
circumstance that we owe the magnificent descrip- 
tion of the salvation in Christ \vith whicli the 
Epistle opens, and in which this salvation is traced 
consecutivelj; in its preparation (vv.^-"), its exe- 
cution ('•'), its publication (*■'»), and its applica- 
tion ("■"), both to Jews ("• ") and to Gentiles ('«• "). 
Thus, at all events, we have brought before ns 
the whole ideal history of salvation in Christ 
from eternity to eternity — from the eternal pur- 
pose as it lay in tlie loving heart of the Father, 
to the eternal consummation, when all things in 
heaven and earth shall be summed up in Christ. 
Even the incredible profvision of the blessings 
which we receive in Christ, described with an 
accumulation of phrases that almost defies exposi- 
tion, is less noticeable here than the emphasis and 
reiteration with which the apostle carries back 
their bestowment on us to that primal purpose of 
God in which all things are afore prepared ere 
they are set in the way of accomplisliment. All 
this accumulation of blessings, he tells his readers, 
has come to them and him only in fulfilment of 
an eternal purpose— only because they had been 
chosen by God out of the mass of sinful men, in 
Christ, before the foundation of the world, to be 
holy and blameless before Him, and had been 
lovingly predestinated unto adoption throujih 
Jesus Chnst to Him, in accordance with the good- 


leasure of His wUl, to the praise of the glory ot 
'is grace. It is therefore, he further explains, 
that to them in the abundance of God's grace 
there has been brought the knowledge of the 
salvation in Christ, describeii here as the know- 
ledge of the mystery of the Divine will, according 
to His "ood-pleasure, which He purposed in Him- 
self witli reference to the dispensation of the ful- 
ness of the times, to sum up all tilings in the 
universe in Christ, — by which phrases the plan 
of salvation is clearly exhibited as but one element 
in the cosmical purpose of God. And thus it is, 
the apostle proceeds to explain, only in pursuance 
of this all-embracing cosmical purpose that Chris- 
tians, whether Jews or Gentiles, have been called 
into participation of these blessings, to the praise 
of the glory of God's grace, — and of the former 
class, he pauses to assert anew tliat their call rests 
on a predestination according to the purpose of 
Him that works all things according to the counsel 
of His will. Throughout this elevated passage, 
the resources of language are strained to the 
utmost to give utterance to the depth and fervour 
of St. Paul's conviction of the absoluteness of the 
dominion which the God, whom he describes as 
Him that works all things according to the counsel 
of His will, exercises over the entire universe, and 
of his sense of the all-inclusive perfection of the 
plan on which He is exercising His world-wide 
government — into whicli world-wide government 
His administration of His grace, in the salvation 
of Christ, works as one element. Thus there ia 
kept steadily before our eyes the wheel within 
wheel of tlie all-comprehending decree of God : of all, the inclusive cosmical purpose in ac- 
cordance with which the universe is governed as it 
is led to its destined end ; within this, the purpose 
relative to the kingdom of God, a substantive 
part, and, in some sort, the hinge of the world- 
purpose itself ; and still Avithin this, the purpose 
of grace relative to the individual, by virtue of 
whicli he is called into the Kingdom and made 
sharer in its blessings : the common element with 
them all being that they are and come to pass 
only in accordance with the good-pleasure of His 
will, according to His purposed good - pleasure, 
according to the purpose of Him who works all 
things in accordance with the counsel of His will ; 
and therefore all alike redound solely to His praise. 
In these outstanding passages, liowever, there 
are only expounded, though with special richness, 
ideas which govern the Pauline literature, and 
which come now and again to clear expression in 
each group of St. Paul's letters. The whole doc- 
trine of election, for instance, lies as truly in the 
declaration of 2 Th 2" or that of 2 Ti 1" (cf. 2 Ti 
2", Tit 3*) as in the passages we have considered 
from Romans (cf. 1 Co l-'i*-si) and Ephesians (cf. 
Eph 2'», Col 1-'' 3^"- '», Ph 4'). It may be possible to 
trace minor distinctions through the several groups 
of letters in forms of statement or modes of re- 
lating the doctrine to other conceptions ; but from 
the beginning to the end of St. Paul's activity as a 
Christian teacher his fundamental teaching as to 
the Christian calling and life is fairly summed up 
in the declaration that those that are saved are 
God's ' workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto 
good works, which God afore prepared that they 
should walk in them ' (Eph 2'<'). 

The most striking impression made upon ui by a survey 
of the whole material is probably the intensity of St. Paul's 
practical interest in the doctrine — a matter fairly illustrated 
by the passage just quoted (Eph 21^). Nothing is more 
noticeable than his zeal in enforcing its two chief practical 
contents — the assurance it should bring to believers of tlieif 
eternal safety in the faithful hands of God, and the ethical 
energy it should arouse within them to live worthily of their 
vocation. It is one of St. Paul's most persistent exhortations, 
that believers should remember that their salvation is not 
committed to their own weak hands, but rest« on the 




tiou ol 11,'iir salvation begins in an act of la.ll. on their o»ra | ment. 
part, which is consequent on the hearing of the gospel, thcr 
aniiciMtnicnt to salvation itself does not depend on this act 
o( (uith, nor on anv fitness discoverable in them on the fore- 
sight of which Ood's choice of them might be supiwaed to bo 
bSed but (as 1 Th i'S already indicates) both the preaching 
of the gospel and the exercise of faith consistently appear 
as steps in the carr)-ing out o( an election not conditioned 
on their occurrence, but embracing them as means to the 
end set bv the free purpose of God. The case is precisely 
the same 'with all subsequent acta o( the Christian life, bo 
far is St. Paul from supposing that election to life should 
operate to enervate moral endeavour, that it is precisely 
Ironi the fact that the willing and doing of man rest on an 
energizing willing and doing of God, which in turn rest on Uis 
eternal purpose, that the apostle derives his most powerful and 
most frequently urged motive for ethical action. That tre- 
mendous ' therefore.' with which at the openmg of the twellUi 
chapter of Uomans he passes from the doctrinal to the ethical 
port of the Epistle,— from a doctrinal exposition the very heart 
of which is salvation by pure grace apart from all works, and 
which had just closed with the fullest discussion of the effects 
of election to be found in all his writings, to the rich exhorW- 

tions to high moral effort with which the closing chapters of 
this Kpistle arc fllled,-niay justly be taken as the normal 
illation of his whole ethical teaching. His Epistles, in fact, are 
sown (as indeed is the whole NT) with particular instances ol 
the sJinie appeal («.o. 1 Th 2>2, 2 Th 2i3-i=. Ito 0, 2 Co 6", 
Col 11" I'h l5a 2'ii3, 2Ti 219). In Ph 2'i " it attains, per- 
haps, lis -.liarpest expression : here the saint is exhorted to 
work out his ovin salvation with tear and trembling, just because 
il 1^ <;™l who is working in him both the willing and the doing 
bccau.e of His • good-pleasure'— obviously but another way of 
saving, ' If God is for us, who can be against us?' 

There is certainly presented in this a problem for those who 
wish to operate in this matter with an irreconcilable either, 
tr • and who can conceive of no freedom of man winch is under 
the control of God. St. Paul's theism was, however, of too 
pure a qualitv to tolerate in the realm o( creaf'on any force 
bevnnd the sway of Him who, as he says, U over all, and 
through all, and in all (Eph 46), working all tb.i*-> according 
to ihe counsel of His will (Kph 1"). And it mu»t ^ conlessc-d 
•hat it is more facile than satisfactory to set his th,:istic world- 
v.ew summarilv aside a.s a • merely religious view," which stands 
in conllict with a truly ethical conception of the world— per- 
haps even with a repelition of Fritzsche's jibe that bt. 1 ail 
would have reasoned better on the high themes of 'fate, free- 
will and providon.-e ' had he sat at the feet of Aristotle rather 
than at those of Gamaliel. Antiquity produced, however, no 
ethical genius equal to St. Paul, and even as a teacher of the 
foundations of ethics Aristotle himself might well be content to 
Bit rather at his feet ; and it does not at once appear why a so- 
called ' religious' conception may not have as valid a ground in 
human nature, and as valid a right to determine human con- 
viction, as a so-called 'ethical ' one. It can serve no good pur- 
pose even to proclaim an iusoluble antinomy here : such an 
antinomy St. Paul assuredly did not feel, as he urged the 
predestination of God not more as a ground of assurance of 
salvation than as the highest motive of moral effort ; and it 
does not seem impossible Tor even us weaker thinkers to follow 
him some little way at least in looking upon those twin bases of 
religion and morality— the ineradicable feelings ot depeiulence 
and responsibility- nota8antogonistiosentinicntsofaliop.:leb3ly 
divided heart, but as fundamentally the same profound con- 
viction operating in a double sphere. At all events, St. Paul 8 
pure thcislic view-point, which conceived Go<i as in His provi- 
dential conriinnui working all thinfeii according to the counsel 
of His will (Kph 1") in entire consistency with the action of 
second causes, necc».sary and tree, the proximate producers ot 
events, supplied him with a very real point of departure tor 
his conception of the same God, in the operations of His grace, 
working the willing and the doing ot Christian men, without 
the least infringement of the integrity ot the free deUrmination 
bv which each grace is proximately attained. It docs not 
belong to our present task to expound the nature of that 
Divine act by which St. Paul represents God as 'callinj,' 
sinners ' into communion vrith his Son,' lUelf the first step in 
the realiz.ition In their livea ot that contonnity to His iniogc to 
which thi-v are predestinated in the counsels of eternily, and of 
which 'he first manifesUtion is that faith in the Keileemer ol 
Ood's elect out of which the whole Christian hie unfolds. Let 
It only be olwcrved in passing lli it he obviously conceives it as 
•nact of God's almighty power, nmovinj; old inahihlies and 
creating new abilities ol living, loving action. It is enough tor 
our present purpose to perceive that even in this act .St. I aul 
did not conceive Gwl as dehumanizing man, but rather m 
energizing man in a new direction of his powers ; while in a 1 
his Bubseipient activities the analogy ol the conair^m ot Provl- 
denco is express. In his own view, his streiiuous assertion ot 
the predeU-miination in God's puq'ose ol all the aclj) of saint 
an<l sinner alike in the matter of salvation, by which the dis- 
crimination ot men into saved ami lost is carried back to the 
tree counsel ol Go<rs will, as little involves violence to the 
ethical sponuneitv ot their activities on the one side, as on 
the other il involves unrighteousness in Gods dealings with His 
oreatures He does not speculatively discuss the niethoils ot 
the Divine providence; hut the fact of its universality — over 
all beings and actions alike— forms one ot his most primary 
presuppositions ; and naturally he finds no dilllculty In postu- 

V. The Bible Doctrine op Predestination. 
—A survey of the whole material thus cursorily 
brought before us exhibits the existence of a cou- 
si.stent Bible doctrine of predestination, which, 
because rooted in, and indeed only a logical out- 
coiuu of, the fundamental Biblical theism, is taught 
in all its essential elements from the beginning of 
the Biblical revelation, and is only more fully un- 
folded in detail as the more developed religious 
consciousness and the course of the history of 
redemption required. 

The sithjctt of tlie DECREE is uniformly conceived 
as God in the fulness of His moral personality. 
It is not to chance, nor to necessity, nor yet to 
an abstract or arbitrary will,— to God acting inad- 
vertently, inconsiderately, or by any necessity of 
nature,— but specifically to the almighty, all-wise, 
all-holy, all-rigliteous, faithful, loving God, to the 
Father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus, that 
is ascribed the predetermination of the course of 
events. Naturally, the contemplation of the plan 
in accordance with which all events come to pass 
calls out primarily a sense of the unsearchaMe 
wisdom of Him who framed it, and of the illiiuit- 
able power of Him who executes it ; and tliese 
attributes are accordingly much dwelt upon -vvhen 
the Divine predestination is adverted to. But the 
moral attributes are no less emphasized, and the 
Biblical writers find tlieir comfort continually in 
the assurance that it is tlie righteous, lioly, faith- 
ful, loving God in whose hands rests the determina- 
tion of the sequence of events and all their issues. 
Just because it is the determination of God, and 
represents Him in all His fulness, the decree is 
ever set forth further as in its nature eternal, 
absolute, and immutable. And it is only an ex- 
plication of these qualities when it is further 
insisted upon, as it is throughout the Bible, that 
it is essentially one single composite purpose, into 
which are worked all the details included in it, each 
in its appropriate place; that it is the pure deter- 
mination of the Divine will— that is, not to be 
confounded on the one hand with an act of the 
Divine intellect on which it rests, nor on the other 
with its execution by His power in the works of 
creation and providence ; that it is free and un- 
conditional—that is, not the product of compulsion 
from without nor of neci-ssity of nature from 
witliin, nor based or conditioned on any occur- 
rence outside itself, foreseen or unforeseen ; and 
that it is certainly ethcacious, or rather cnnstitutes 
the unchanging norm according to which He who 
is the King over all administers His governmont 
over the universe. Nor is it to pass beyond the 
nece.ssary implications of the fundamental idea 
when it is further taught, as it is always taught 
throughout the Scriptures, that the olijo-t of the 
decree is the whole universe of things and all their 
activities, so that nothing comes to pass, whether 
in tlie sphere of necessary or free causation, 
whether good or bad, save m accordance with the 
provisions of the primal phm, or more mecisely 
save as the outworking in fact of what had lain 
in the Divine mind as imrpose from all eternity, 
and is now only unfolded into actuality as the 
fulUlinent of His all-deturmiMing will. Finally, 
it is equally unvaryingly represented that the 
end wliicli the decreeing God had in view in 
framing His is to be souglit not without 
but williin Himself, and may be shortly declared 
as His own praise, or, as we now comnionly say, 
the glory ot God. Since it antedates the existence 
of all "things outside of God and ]inivi<los for 
their coming into being, they all without excel.- 
tioii n-ust be ranked as means to its end, which 




cau be discovered only in the glory of the Divine 
purposer Himself. The whole Jjible doctrine of 
the decree revolves, in a word, around the simple 
idea of j)urpose. Since God is a Person, the very 
mark ot His being is purpose. Since He is an 
infinite Person, His purpose is eternal and inde- 
pendent, all-inclusive and effective. Since He is a 
moral Person, His purpose is the perfect exposition 
of all His inlinite moral perfections. Since He is 
the personal creator of all that exists, His purpose 
can lind its final cause onlj' in Himself. 

At;ainst this general doctrine of the decree, the 
Ijible doctrine of ELECTION is thrown out into 
special prominence, being, as it is, only a particular 
application of the general doctrine of the decree to 
the matter of the dealings of God with a sinful 
race. In its fundamental characteristics it there- 
fore partakes of all the elements of the general 
doctrine of the decree. It, too, is necessaril3' an 
act of God in His completeness as an inlinite 
moral Person, and is therefore eternal, absolute, 
immutable — the independent, free, unconditional, 
elieciive determination by the Divine will of the 
objects of His saving operations. In the develop- 
ment of the idea, however, there are certain 
elements which receive a special stress. There is 
nothing tiiat is more constantly emphasized than 
the absolute sovereignty of the elective choice. 
The very essence of the doctrine is made, indeed, 
to consist in the fact that, in the whole administra- 
tion of His grace, God is moved by no considera- 
tion derived from the special recipients of His 
saving mercy, but the entire account of its distri- 
bution is to be found hidden in the free counsels 
of His own will. Tliat it is not of him that runs, 
nor of him that wills, but of God that shows mercy, 
that the sinner obtains salvation, is the stead- 
fast witness of the whole body of Scripture, urged 
with such reiteration and in such varied con- 
nexions as to exclude the possibility that there 
may lurk behind the act of election considerations 
of foreseen characters or acts or circumstances — 
all of which ajipear rather as results of election 
as wrouglit out in fact by t\i& providentia special- 
issiiiM of the electing God. It is with no less 
constancy of emphasis that the roots of the Divine 
election are planted in His unsearchable love, by 
which it ajipears as t/ie supreme act of grace, Con- 
tenqilation of the general plan of God, including 
in its provisions every event which comes to pass 
in the whole universe of being during all the ages, 
must redound in the tirst instance to the praise of 
the inlinite wisdom which has devised it all ; or as 
our apjireciation of its provisions is deepened, of 
the glorious righteousness by which it is informed. 
Contemplation of the particular element in His pur- 
pose which proviiles for the rescue of lost sinners 
from the destruction due to their guilt, and their 
restoration to right and to God, on the other hand 
draws our thou;;hts at once to His inconceivable 
love, and must redound, as the Scriptures delight 
to phrase it, to the praise of His glorious grace. 
It IS ever, therefore, specifically to the love of 
God that the Scriptures ascribe II is elective decree, 
and they are never weary of raising our eyes from 
the act itself to its source in the Divine com- 
passion. A similar emphasis is also ever>'where 
cast on the piirliculariti/ of the Divine election. 
So little is it the designation of a mere class to 
be (illed uji by undeteniiincd individuals in the 
exercise of their own determination ; or of mere 
conditions, or characters, or i|ualities, to be fullilled 
or attained by the undetermined activities of in- 
dividuals, foreseen or unforeseen ; that the Biblical 
writers take special pains to carry home to the 
heart of each individual believer the assurance 
that he himself has been from all eternity the 
particular object of the Divine choice, and that 

he owes it to this Divine choice alone that he ig 
a member of the class of the chosen ones, that he 
is able to fuUil the conditions oi salvation, that 
he can hope to attain the character on which iiluiie 
God can look with complacency, that he can look 
forward to an eternity of bliss as his own posses- 
sion. It is the very nerve of the Biblical doctrine 
that each individual of that enormous multitude 
that constitutes the great host of the people of 
God, and that is illustrating tlie character of 
Christ in the new life now lived in the strength 
of the Son of God, has from all eternity been the 
particular object of the Divine regard, and is only 
now fultilling the high destiny designed for him 
from the foundation of the world. 

The Biblical writers are as far as possible from 
obscuring the doctrine of election because of any 
seemingly unpleasant corollaries that flow trom 
it. On the contrary, they expressly draw the 
corollaries which have often been so designated, 
and make them a part of their explicit teaching. 
Their doctrine of election, they are free to tell 
us, for example, does certainly involve a corre- 
sponding doctrine of preterition. The very term 
adopted in NT to express it — eK\^yofiai, which, 
as Meyer justly saj's (Eph I''), 'aiicaijs has, and 
must of logical necessity have, a reference to 
others to whom the chosen would, without the 
tK\(ryi], still belong ' — embodies a declaration of the 
fact tliat in their election others are passed by and 
left without the gift of salvation ; the whole i)re- 
sentation of the doctrine is such as either to imply 
or openly to assert, on its every emergence, the 
removal of the elect by the pure grace of God, not 
merely from a state of condemnation, but out of the 
company of the condemned — a company on whom 
the grace of God has no saving ettect, and who are 
therefore left without hope in their sins ; and the 
positive just reprobation of the impenitent for tiieir 
sins is repeatedly explicitly taught in sharp con- 
trast with the gratuitous salvation of the elei^t 
despite their sins. But, on the other haml, it is 
ever taught that, as the body out of w liich believers 
are chosen by God's unsearchable grace is the 
mass of justly condemned sinners, so the destruction 
to which those that are passed by are left is the 
righteous recompense of their guilt. Thus the 
discrimination between men in tiie matter of 
eternal destiny is distinctly set forth as taking 
place in the interests of mercy and tor the sake 
of salvation: from the fate which justly hangs 
over all, God is represented as in His inlinite 
compassion rescuing those chosen to this ei.d in 
His inscrutable counsels of mercy to the praise 
of the glory of His grace; while those that are 
left in their sins perish most deservedly, as the 
justice of (jod demands. And as tlie broader 
lines of God's gracious dealings with the world 
lying in its iniquity are more and more fully 
drawn for us, we are enabled ultimately to i)er- 
ceive that the Father of spirits has not distributed 
His elective grace with niggard hand, but from the 
beginning has had in view the restoration to Him- 
self of the whole world; and through whatever 
slow approaches (as men count slowness) He has 
made thereto — tirst in the segregation of the Jews 
for the keeping of the service of God alive in the 
midst of an evil world, and then in their rejection 
in order that the fulness of tlie Gentiles might be 
gathered in, and linally through them Israel in turn 
may all be saved — has ever been conducting the 
world in His loving wisdom and His wise love to 
its destined goal of salvation, — now and again, 
indeed, shutting up this or that element of it unto 
disobedience, but never merely in order that it 
might fall, but that in the end He might have 
mercy upon all. Thus the Biblical writers bid us 
raise our ej-es, not only from the justly condemned 




lost, that we may with deeper feeling contemplate 
the marvels of the Divine love in the saving of 
sinners no better than they and with no greater 
claims on the Divine mercy ; but from the rela- 
tively insignificant body of the lost, as but the 
prunings gathered beneath tlie branches of the 
olive-tree planted by the Lord's own hand, to fix 
them on the thrifty stock itself and the crown of 
luxuriant leafajre and ever more riilily ripining 
fruit, as under tlie loving pruning and grafting of 
the great Husbandman it grows and llourislies and 
puts forth its bouglis until it shall sliade the whole 
earth. This, according to tlie Biblical writers, is 
the end of election ; and this is nothing other than 
the salvation of the world. Thougli in the process 
of the ages the goal is not attained without prun- 
ings and tires of burning, — though all tlie wild olive 
twigs are not throughout the centuries grafted in, 
— yet the goal of a saved world shall at the end be 
gloriously realized. Meanwhile, the hope of the 
world, the hope of the Church, and the hope of the 
individual alike, is cast solely on the mercy of a 
freely electing God, in whose bands are all tilings, 
and not least the care of the advance of His saving 
grace in the world. And it is undeniable that 
•whenever, as the years have passed bj', the currents 
of religious feeling have run deep, and the higher 
ascents of religious thinking have been scaled, it 
has ever been on the free might of Divine grace that 
Christians have been found to cast their hoi)es for 
the salvation alike of the world, the Church, and 
the individual ; and whenever they have thus 
turned in trust to the pure grace of God, they have 
spontaneously given expression to their faith in 
terms of the DiWne election. 
See also Election, Reprobate, Will. 

LiTERATimB. — The Biblical material can best be surveyed with 
the help of the Lexicons on the terms einijloyed (esp. Crcnier), 
the commentaries on the passages, antl the sections in the several 
treatises on Biblical Theology dealin[f \v\th this and connate 
themes ; amon^ Ihetie last, tlte works of Dillmann on the OT, and 
lloltzmann on the NT, may be especially profitably consulted. 
The Pauline doctrine has, in particular, been made the subject 
of almost endless discussion, chiefly, it must be confessed, with 
the object of softening its outlines or of explaining it more or 
less nway. Perhaps the following are the more important 
recent treatises: — I'oelnian, de Jam ApogtotoruiaquCt Paidi 
pripjt^rthn, doctrina de prcedestiiwlinne dim'na ti ntorati 
nominii lihertaU, Gron. 1S51 ; Weiss, ' Predeatinationslehre 
des Ap. Paul,' in Jahrbh. /. D. Tfieut, i857, p. 54 f. ; Lamping, 
Pauti de prtEdeslirialifjne decrdorum eiiarratiu, Leov. ISoS ; 
Ooens, Le T6le de ta liberty humahw. rfa/w la prihii'alination 
Paidiniemv-, Lausanne, 1884 ; Ment-goz, La prMeMttnatiim dans 
ta IfiMlofiir I'auiinicnne, Paris, 1»S.^ ; I>almer, ' Zur Paulinischen 
Erwahlungslehre,' in (irei/vwutder Studien, Gulersloh, 1895. 
The publication of Karl Miiller's valuable treatise on /)('« 
Gvtttic/ie Zurorersehujifj und Erwdhlung, etc. (ILalle, IS02), 
has called out a new literature on the section Ito 9-11, the 
most important items in which are probably the rejtrint of 
Heyschlag's Die I'anliiiuche Theodicee (1896, first published in 
18<Vs), and Dalmer, Die Erwdhlung Israels nacfi der lleilsver- 
kundirjuiyj det Ap. Paul. (Giiter'sloh, 1S94), and Kuhl, 'Zur 
Paulinim-hen Theodicee,' in the TheoUtfjiifche SUulien, presented 
to B. Weiss (Gottingen, 1S97). But of these only Goens recog- 
nizes the rlouble predestination; even Muller, whose treatise 
is otherwise of the first value, argues against it, and so does 
Dalmer in his very interesting diiicussions; the others are still 
less in accordance with their text (cf. the valuable critical 
note on the recent literature in lloltznmnn's NT Theotogie, 
11. 171-174). 

Discussions of the doctrine of post-Canonical Judaism may 
be found in Hamburger, /(caf-ii'/jcvc. ii. 102 f., art. ' Bestinunung'; 
Weber, Jiid. Theol. 148 II., ^^0i ff.; Schiirer, UJP n. ii. 14 f. (cf. 
p. 2f. , where the i>a.ssages from .losepbus are collectedl; 
Kdersbeim, Life and Times of Jetnis, \. ;jl6fT., art. ' Philo' in 
Smith anil Wace, 38;i», and Speak. Com. on Eccleslusticiis, pp. 
14, Ifi ; Ryle and James, J'snhns of Solomon on 1)7 and Introd. ; 
Montet, Oriffinen des partis fotlnc^en el pharisien, 2.^8f, ; 
Holtzmann. AT Thri.lor,ie, I. 32, SS ; P. J. Muller, De GmUleer 
der inittdeleeuirisrfie Jmlen, Groningen, 18flS ; furtlier literature 
Is given in .Schurer. — For post-Canonical Chrivtian discussion, 
see the literature at the end of art. Kl.Kc-rioN in the present 
work, vol. 1. p. 881. B. B, WaUFIKLD. 

PREDICTION — See Prophecy, p. 120 f. 

PRE-EXISTENCE OF SOULS.— The only hint in 
NT of a belief in the existence of human .souls prior 

to birth is in Jn 9-, where the disciples of Jesus 
l)Ut the que.<ition, 'Rabbi, who did sin, tkii m/tn, 
or his parents, that he should be burn blind ':•' The 
^jrimd facie interpretation of this passage certainly 
IS that the di.sciples believed it possible that the 
soul of this man lijid sinned before the man was 
born. M.any commentators, as, e.g., Dr. David 
Brown, hold this to be untenable, because ' the 
Jews did not believe in the i)re-existence of souls.' 
If by this is meant that this belief did not form 
part of the older Jewish religion, that would be 
correct, for the tenor of OT teaching is distinctly 
tradiuian. In Gn 2' we are taught that the soul 
of the lirst man was due to the Divine in-breathing ; 
and Gn 5' tells that ' Adam begat a son, after his 
im.age.' But to atiirm that Jews in Christ's time 
did not believe in pre-existence, is simply inaccu- 
rate. The disciples of Jesus had at all events 
some points of adinity with the Essenes ; and 
Josephus expressly states that the Essenes believe 
that the souls of men are, and dwell in 
the subtlest ether, but, being drawn down by 
physical passion, they are united with bodies, as 
it were in prisons {/ij it. viii. 11). In Wis 8" the 
doctrine is clearly taught : ' A good soul fell to 
my lot : naj' rather, being good I came into a body 
that was undefiled.' Philo also believed in a realm 
of incorporeal souls, which may be arranged in two 
ranks : some have descended into mortal bodies 
and been released after a time ; others have main- 
tained their |mrity, and kept aloft close to the 
ether itself (Drumiiiond, rhilo .Judauui, i. 336). In 
the Talmud and Midrash, pre-existence is con- 
stantly taught. The abode of souls is called 
Guj>/i, or the Treasury (li'K), where they have 
dwelt since they were created in the beginning. 
The angel Lilitli receives instruction from God as 
to which soul shall inhabit each body. The soul 
is taken to heaven and then to hell, and afterwards 
enters the womb and vivilies the fa'tus. (Weber, 
Lehren des Talmud, 204, 217 Ii'. [./)«/. Thcologie auj 
Grund des Talmud'-, etc. 212, 225 11'.]). 

Whence did Judaism derive a creed so much at 
variance with its earlier faith ? Most jirobably 
from Plato. There are some scholars, however, 
who find support for the doctrine even in tlie OT : 
e.g. Job 1-' ' Naked came I from my mutlier's 
womb, and naked shall I return thither.' To lind 
pre-existence here, one must suppose the mother's 
womb to be the abode of souls, and ' 1 ' to be the 
naked soul. Sir 40' seems to be explaining the 
word 'thither' in .lob 1'-', when it says, 'Great 
travail is created for every man, from the day 
they go forth from their mother's womb to the 
day of their return to the mather <if nil living.' 
Again, in Ps 13!)'''"'* some scholars lind an account 
of the origin, tirst, of the body, tlien of the soul : 
' Thou hast woven me in the womb of my mother. 
My subst.ance was not hid from thee, when I was 
formed in the secret place, when 1 was wrought 
in the deejis of the earth.' Since the doctrine of 

S re-existence is not in the line of Revelation, most 
ivines are reluctant to admit that it is taught in 
these [lassages. Dr. Davidson on Job 1'-" says, 
'The words " my mother's womb" must be taken 
literally ; and " return thither " somewhat in- 
exactly, to ilescribe a coiulition similar to that 
which iircci'iled eiitninceuiioii life anil light.' And 
as for I's 13'.)", Oehler, Dillmann, and .Schultz pre- 
fer to interjiret it of the formation of the hadi/ in 
a place as dark and mysterious as the dejitlis of 
the earth. The passage in Jn !!'■' simply rcinesentB 
the earlier creed of the disciples. There is no 
evidence that it formed part of their mature 
Christian faith. .J. T. Mak.shall. 

PREPARATION DAY (^ Ta/>a<r«n)). — In the 
Gos|iels the day on wHeli Clirist died is called ' the 




Preparation' (Mt 27«-, Mk IS*', Jn 19"), 'the day 
of (the) Preparation ' (Lk 23"), ' the Jews' Prepara- 
tion (day) ' (Jn 19*^), 'the Preparation of the j)ass- 
over ' ( Jn 19"). In Mk and Lk it is further dehned 
by the clauses, 'that is, the day before the Sabbath ' 
^-vurdp^aTov), and 'the Sabbath drew on.' 'The 
Prej<*'-<ition' therefore appears to have been the 
rejpilai name for the sixth day of the week as 
' Sabbatn ' was for the seventh. This is confirmed 
by Jos. (Ant. yiW. vi. 2), where it is said that 
Augustus relieved the Jews from certain legal 
duties on the Sabbath and on ' tlie Preparation 
which preceded it from the ninth hour.' In 
Jth 8° mention is made of Trpora,ij3aTa as well as 
ffd^^ara, and also of irpovovfMTjflat (day preceding 
the festival of new moon); cf. also the LXX in 
Ps 92 (93) title : eit ttji' i]fi^pav toS Tpocra^^irov. In 
the Talm. also the sixth day is called NfCin;; 
(evening), and the same word is used in tlie Syriac 
Gospels (ilruhhtd); whOo, in ecclesiastical WTiters 
beginning with the Teaching of the Apostles (viii.), 
Tapij.<TKevi) is the regular name for Friday, as it still 
is in modem Greek. The title naturally arose 
from the need of preparing food, etc., for the 
Sabbath (see Sabbath). It was apparently applied 
first to the afternoon of the sixth day and after- 
wards to the whole day. 

The phraseology in Jn \9* (' it was the Prepara- 
tion of the Passover ') is, however, held by many 
expositors to indicate that by this term St. John 
meant the preparation for the paschal feast, i.e. 
Nisan 14. Some conclude that he used the term 
difi'erently from the Synoptists, and as equivalent 
to the rabbinic np=ri y^ (passover-eve) ; this bein" 
part of the alleged difference between him and 
them as to the date of Christ's death. Westcott 
(Introd. to Gosp. 1875, p. 339), on the other hand, 
argues tliat the Synoptists also meant 'preparation 
for the passover.' But the latter view forces their 
language, and St. John's phrase may properly 
mean ' the Preparation (day) of the paschal feast,' 
i.e. the Friday of passover-week. This is made the 
more probable by the Synoptists' use of it, and by 
its appearance, as the name for Friday, in so early 
a work as The Teaching of the Apostles. Its use in 
Jn 19"- *^ also best accords \vith this interpretation. 


PRESBYTER.— See Bishop, CHtJKCH Govern- 
ment, and following article. 

PRESBYTERY (Trp(a?m(piov).—T\i& Gr. word is 
used in NT for the Jewisli Sanhedrin (Lk 22^'^, Ac 
22'). See SANHEDRIN. It also occurs once where 
the connexion shows that it refers to the body of 
elders in a church, Timotliy receiving a spiritual 
gift through the imposition of the hands of the 
presbytery (1 Ti 4'*). Tliis implies a certain cor- 
porate unity in the collective action of the elders. 
vVlierever the eldership appears in NT tliere is a 
plurality of elders. We have no means of dis- 
lovering how many there were in each presbytery. 
Tlie only numerical reference to the subject in NT is 
descriptive of the heavenly presbytery (Rev i* etc. ), 
where the number ' twenty • four ' is evidently 
mystical, referring perhaps to the double of the 
' twelve,' which is drawn from the twelve tribes of 
Israel, or the twelve patriarchs together with the 
twelve apostles, or to the twenty-four courses of the 
priests (Simcox, 7?««. p. 31). Probably the number 
would vary according to the size of the church, as 
the number of elders in a synagogue varied accord- 
in"; to the population of Jews in its locality. 

We have no evidence that in the earliest times 
there was a presbytery in every church. The 
references to dLscipfine in Romans, Galatians, and 
osp. in 1 and 2 Corinthians, show that if presby- 
tei'es existed in the churches addressed they were 
not very prominent or powerful. The silence of 

St. Paul on the subject suggests the inference that 
at Corinth, at all events, and possibly also else- 
where, no presbytery had yet been formed. On 
the South-Galatian theory, however, .\c 14'-^ wculd 
indicate that there must have been elders in the 
churches to which the Ep. to Gal. was sent. At 
first the presbytery was almost, if not entirely, con- 
fined to Jewish churches (Hatch in Diet. Chr. Ant. 
art. 'Priest,' p. 1099 f.). Still the title irpea^urepoi 
and the organization of local government in Gr. 
cities, still more the use of this title in religious 
guilds, must have prepared for the acceptance of a 
presbj'tery in Gentile circles of Christians (Lbning, 
Vie Gemeindeverfassung, p. 9). Even among the 
Jews, however, it does not appear that there were 
elders in connexion with every synagogue (Schiirer, 
HJP II. ii. 27). It is reasonable, therefore, to con- 
clude that at first the organization of a presbytery 
proceeded more rapidly in some churches than in 

In teaching, of course, the presbyters would have 
acted separately according to their individual gifts 
and opportunities. It would be in government and 
discipline that the corporate presbytery discharged 
its principal functions. These appear to have been 
the chief functions of the presbyters, as they are 
the most frequently referred to. It was not every 
elder who undertook the work of teaching (1 Ti 
5") ; but there is no indication that any of the 
elders were excepted from the duty of ruling. The 
function of exercising a general oversight of their 
church is implied in the use of the words ^nr/coirfi* 
(1 P 5'"-) and iir^aKOTr^ (Clem. Rom. 1st Ep. xliv. 1) 
for the duties of elders. At Jerusalem the pres- 
bytery served as a board of church finance, the 
contributions for the poor being delivered into 
the hands 'of the elders' (Ac U**). These elders 
acted jointly at the 'Jerusalem council,' where 
they appear associated with the apostles — 'the 
apostles and the elders, with the whole church' 
(Ac 15-'). The reference to the ordination of 
Timothy shows that in performing that function 
the elders acted in concert (1 Ti 4"). The analogy 
of the synagogue would suggest that in the dis- 
charge of their administrative and judicial functions 
the presbyters were united into a eouncU, corre- 
sponding to the local Je\vish <nivi5pi.ov. We have 
no account of the way in which they came to a 
decision. The precedent of the Sanhedrti would 
suggest that tliey would discuss questions and 
decide by vote. There is no indication that there 
was ever a serious discord in a presbytery during 
NT times. The question of the presidentship in 
the primitive presbytery is most obscure. St. 
James is president of tne church at Jerusalem ; 
but his case is altogether exceptional. As the 
brother of Jesus, he seems to have had a personal 
pre-eminence given to him. It does not appear 
that he was a presbyter. No similar pre-eminence 
is seen in any other church. The apostles, when 
they visit a church, naturally take the lead. But 
tliat is only temporary. '1 he emergence of one 
elder over the head of his brethren with the ex- 
clusive use of the name 'bishop,' which was 
previously given to a plurality, if not to the whole, 
of the elders, is not found in NT, nor does it 
appear before the 2nd cent. In the NT the pres- 
bj'tery seems to consist of a body of elders of 
equal rank. See BISHOP, Church, Church 
Government, Elder. W. F. Adenky 

PRESENT.-See Gift. 

PRESENTLY in AV always means 'at once* 
instead of, as now, 'soon, but not at once.' It 
occurs in 1 S 2" (oV;, AVm 'as on the day,' UVra 
'first'); Pr 12" (dv3, AVm 'in that day,' KVni 
•openly'); Sir 9'^ (no Greek, RV omits); Mt '-'1" 




(wapoxpiiMa, RV ' immediately ') ; 26" {irapoffT7)(rei 
/loi, AV ' will presently give me,' RV ' will even 
now send me'); I'll 2^ ({{ain-?)?, RV 'forthwith'). 
In the siune sense it is used also in the Preface to 
AV, as ' Neither were we barred or hindered from 
poing over it again, haring once done it, like Saint 
Hierome, if that be true which himself reporteth, 
tliat he could no sooner write anything, but 
presently it was caught from him and published, 
and he cnuld not have leave to mend it.' Cf. 
Fuller, Holy Warre, 178, 'The Dominicanes and 
Franciscanes . . . were no sooner hatched in the 
world, liut presently chirped in the pulpits'; and 
Uulij State, 14, ' Rase is their nature who . . . wUl 
let go none of their goods, as if it presaged their 
speedy death ; whereas it doth not follow that he 
that puts oti'his cloke must presently go to bed.' 

J. Hastings. 
PRESIDENT occurs in EV only in Dn 6-- ^- ■•• »• ', 
as tr" iif ■;^r (only in plur. p;";D, emphat. Kjjnj), 
whicli is probablj' a loanword from some Persian 
derivative oi sar 'head,' and thus= 'chief (Prince, 
Dnn. p. 234). Daniel is said to have been one of 
the three ' presidents ' who were set by Darius over 
the 120 satraps of his empire. Theod. renders in 
the above passage by raxrikoi e.xcept in v.', where 
he has arpa-rq^ol ; LXX by Tfyoiixevoi in v.', where 
alone the term is directly translated. 

PRESS (Jx^ot) is used for a crowd in Mk 2* 5"- ", 
Lk 81" 19» ; RV always ' crowd.' Cf. Jn 5", Tind., 
' lesus had gotten him selfe awaye, because tliat 
ther was preace of people in the place'; Elyot, 
Gavemour, ii. 292, ' Such noble courage was in 

Seat kynge Alexander, that in hys warres agaj-ne 
arius, he was sene of all hys pco])le tightynge 
in thu prease of his eneniyes bare heded'; and 
Spenser, FQ I. iii. 3 — 

' Yet she most faitbfull ladie all thia whil* 
Forsaken, wofuU, solitarie niayd. 
Far from all peopU-s preace, oa in exile, 
In wildernes^e and wa3t(ull deserts strayd, 
To seeke her knijjht.' 

The verb to press is used in the same sense : 
Gn 19' 'They pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, 
and came near to break the door' (c"'."*? njE: ; but 
in v.' AV ' press upon,' RV ' urge,' and in 33" AV 
and RV ' ur^e,' the same word is used figuratively) ; 
2 Mac 14' 'Be careful for . . . our nation which 
is pressed on every side ' [rod Trtpucrafxlvov yivov^ 
r]nuf, RV 'nur race, which is surrounded liy foes,' 
RVm ' is hardly bestead ') ; Mk 3'° ' Insomuch that 
they pressed upon him for to touch him' (wcrre 
iirnrlTTTeii/ aiVi^, AVin 'rushed upon him,' RVm 
'fell upon him'); Lk 5' 'As the people pressed 
upon him to hear tln' word of God ' (if ti} rbv dx^ov 
iTnaeiaOai airT(f) ; 8" 'The multitude throng thee 
and thee' (oi 6x^oi awlx"^"^ "'^ to' iiroOXiBovffi, 
RV 'the multitudes press tliee and crush tiiee'). 
From this it is to pass to the sense of urgent 
endeavour, as Lk IG'" 'Since that time the king- 
dom of God is preached, and every man presseth 
into it' (tSs e(s oiVtji' jiid^crat, RV 'every man 
enteretli violently into it'); and Ph 3" ' I press 
toward the mark' (/cari nKOTii' Snixui, RV 'I press 
on toward the goal '). In Ac 18' we have an 
application of the same meaning, hut more li'rura- 
tive : ' Paul was pressed in the spirit and testilied ' 
{(rvveixero rif irvei/^iari, edd. r<p Xiryt)), RV ' was con- 
strained by the word'). Cl. Lv 21" Tind. 'No 
man of tin seed in their gi-neraciona that hath 
«nj- deformyte apon him, slmll ]irusc for to oiler 
the bred of his God'; Lk 14' Tind. ' He put fortlio 
a similitude to the gestes, wlicn he marked how 
they preased to the liyest roumes'; Holland, Mnr- 
celtinus, p. 70 (ed. IGU'J), 'Whiles the barbarous 
enemies preassed on all in plumpes and heapes.' 

J. Hastings. 

VOL. IV. — 5 

PRESS, PRESSFAT.— See Fat and WiNE. 

PREVENT.— This word is more frequently used 
in AV than in any previous version. It does not 
occur in Wyclif, and in Tindale but rarely The 
AV was translated at the time of its greatest 
popularity. Its meaning is, after the Lat. prce- 
venirc and the Fr. privenir, 'to be before, 'to 
anticipate.' Very often the word has practically 
the opposite of its modern meaning. In a note to 
Jn 3"' the Rliemish translators s.ay, 'The oUstinate 
Heretike is condemned by his owne judgement, 
preventing in him self, of his owne free wil, the 
sentence both of Christ and of the Church.' The 
Heb. verb so translated in AV is always [Dip], 
chielly in the Piel, twice (Job 41", Am 9'") in the 
Ilil^hJ. The Greek verbs are 0ffdvw(\Vis4'G'M6-', 
1 Th 4i»), or irpo<t>9ivoi (1 Mac 10'=', Mt 17^), and 
once TrpoKaraXati^avu (1 jiac 6"''). 

1. To be bf.fore, anticipate: Ps 88" 'In the 
morning shall my prayer prevent thee' (LXX 
Trpo(t>0a.aei <re, Vulg. pro'ceniet te, Cov. 'cometh my 
prayer before thee,' I'erowne 'cometh to meet 
thee,' RV as Cov. 'shall come before thee'); 
ligi47. 148 < 1 prevented the dawning of the morning 
and cried ' . . . ' mine eyes prevent the night 
watches' (LXX ■rpoi(pOaaav iie . . , ■irpoi<p0aaa.v ol 
iipdaXfioi fj.ov, Vulg. pranxni in maturitate . . . 
prcEvenerunt oculi mci. Purvey ' I befor cam in 
ripenesse . . . vayn ej'en befor caiiicii to thee ful 
eerli,' Cov. ' Early in the mornyngc do I crie unto 
the . . . myne eyes prevente the night watches,' 
Cheyne ' I forestalled the daylight and cried for 
help . . . mine eyes outgo the night watches,' 
de Witt ' I am up before dawn . . . mine eyes 
forestall every watch in the night'); Wis 4' 
'Though the righteous be prevented with death, 
yet shall he be in rest' (^di" tpSda-g reXtwijaai, Vulg. 
si morte prwocrupatus ftierit, Cov. ' be overtaken 
with death,' Gen. 'be prevented with death,' RV 
' though he die before his time ') ; 6'" She [Wisdom] 
preventeth them that desire lier, in making herself 
lirst known unto them' {(pOdi^a tovs iinUv,u.oOi'Tas 
Trpoyi^wa$TJifai, Vulg. P raiorv apat qui sc fO}tctipi^runtf 
■ut illis se prior ostcnilut, Cov. ' .She preventeth 
them that de-syre her,' RV 'She foiestalleth them 
that desire to know her') ; 16^ 'We must prevent 
the sun to give thee thanks' (5ei tpOdvetv rby ViXioi-, 
Vulg. oportet prwvcnirc solem. Gen. ' We o<;ht 
to prevente the sunne rising to give thankes 
unto thee,' RV ' We must rise before the sun to 
give thee thanks'); Mt 17" 'When he was come 
into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying. What 
thinkest thou, Simon ?' (irpoiipBaaev aiWiv 6 'Ij)iroCs, 
Vulg. prn'fernt eum Jcsu.'!, Wye. 'Jhesus came 
bifore hym,' Tind. ' lesus spake fyrst to him,' Cov. 
' lesus prevented him,' RV as Tind. 'Jesus spake 
first to him ') ; 1 Th 4" ' We which are alive and 
remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not 
prevent them which are asleep' (Sn . . . oi /li) 
<j>Bd<xafjitp Tous Koiii.r]0{iiTas, Vulg. nan prdvenievuts 
eos qui dormierunt. Wye. ' schulen not come bifore 
hem that slepten,' Tind. ' shall not come yerre 
they which slepe,' Gen. 'slial not prevent them 
which slejic' ; RV 'shall in nowise precede them 
that are fallen asleep'). 

The following quotations ilhistrato this first meaning : — 
l!(l;ill, Eragviun' J*araj'hras'', lol. vii., *thc (.Jenlyles that 
wer lur of do prevente the .lewes wliicli wer tlioii^ht to be next 
unto Uod': Hall, ConUliij'ttUwnSt ii. 1*2'.!, 'When ho was upon 
the Hca of Tiherius . . . they followed him so fast on foot that 
they prevented his landing'; North's /'fnirtrcA, 8711, ' The con- 
spinitora, having prevented this dantjer, saved theniselvc« * ; 
Mk 14S Kheni. ' She hath prevented to anoint my body to the 
burial ' ; Milton, liyinn on the Nalitntt/— 

• See how from far upon the eastern rode 
The star-led \Vizar<ls haste with Odours sweet 
O run, i>re\'ent them with Iliy luimhlu ode, 
And lav it lowly at his blessed feet ; 
Have tliou tlio uonour first thy Lord to greet*' 




2. To anticipate for one's good: Job 41" 'Who 
hath prevented me that I should repay him ? ' 
(dVs^xi ';;'-pn 'p,* Vulg. Quis ante dedit mihi ut 
reddam ei?, Cov. 'Who hath geven me eny thj'nge 
afore liande, that 1 am bounde to rewarde him 
ogayne ? ' RV ' Who liath first j^ven unto me, that 

1 sliould repay him?'); Ps 21' 'Thou preventest 
him with the blessings of goodness' (LAX Trpo^cp- 
6a(xas ai'TOv iv iiiXoyiais Xf'O^'^^'^^^^y Vulg. prwrt'.nwiti 
euin in benedict ioniljus dulcedinis ; Wye. 'thou 
■neiitist beforn liim in blessingus of sweetnesse,' 
Cov. ' thou liast prevented him with liberall bless- 
inges') ; 59'" 'The (iod of my mercy sliall prevent 
me ' (LXX 6 ^eis /xou, rb fKeos airroO TrpotpOdcret ^e, 
Vulg. Deus jdcifs, misericordia ejus prcEveniet me. 
Gen. ' My merciful God will prevent me ' ; Perowne, 
' My God witli his loving kindness sliall come to 
meet me ') ; 79* ' Let thy tender mercies speedily 
prevent us' (LXX rax!) TpoKaraXa^eTwaav Jifiat oi 
oiKTeipnoi (Tou, Vulg. cito anticipient nos misericordicE 
suoe. Gen. ' Make haste and let thy tender mercies 
prevent us,' de Witt ' Let thy mercies with speed 
come to meet us'); Is 21" 'They prevented with 
their bread him that tied' (LXX dprois awavTar^ 
Toi! <l>e&yoviji.v , Vulg. cum panibus occurrite fugicnti. 
Wye. ' With loeves ageucometh to the fleende,' 
Purvey ' Renne ye with looves to hym that fleeth ' ; 
Cov. ' Meet those witli bread that are fled,' Gen. 
' Prevent him that fleeth with his bread,' Chevne 
' With his bread meet tlie fugitive,' Skinner ' Meet 
the fugitive with bread [suitable] for him ' ; RV 
' The inliabitants of Tenia did meet the fugitives 
■with their bread' [so Dt 23* AV itself for same Heb.]). 

Illustrations of this meaning are : 

Pr. Bk. (1549J End o/ Communion, • Prevent us, O Lord, in 
all our doings with thy most p-acious favour'; Art. X. 'We 
have no power to do good workea pleasaunt and acceptable to 
God, without the irrace of God by Christ* preventyng us ' ; 
Archbishop Hamilton's Catechism, fol. x\Ti, * We prevenit nocht 
God with our lufe. lutTand him first, bot he prevenit us first 
mtli his lufe ' ; Udall. Erasmus Paraphrase, fol. xcvii, ' Whereas 
the gospell of my death shall bee preached throujrhout all the 
worlde, this woman also shall be mencioned, whiche, with a 
godly and an holy duety hath prevented my sepulture and 
buriall'; Hall, Works, 466, 'He whose goodnesse is wont to 
prevent our desires will not give denialls to our importunities' ; 
Ro 1210 Rhem. ' With honour preventing one another.' 

3. To get before or forestall so as to hinder: 

2 S 22* II Ps 18' ' The snares of death prevented 
me' (LXX Trpo^<pda(xa.v fie (tk\t}p6tt]T€s [Ps IS' wayLd^s] 
dafirov, Vulg. prcsvenerunt [Ps 18° prmoccupaver- 
«nt] me laquei mortis, Wye. 'There wenten before 
me the gnaris of detli,' Dou. 'The snares of death 
have prevented me,' RV 'The sn.ares of death 
came upon me'); "22" || Ps 18'* 'They prevented 
me in tlie day of my calamity' (LXX TrpoicpBaadi' 
/te ri^iptxi 6\i\pnjL>s fxov [Ps 18'* ^v V^P<1^ KaKutaeus fiou], 
Vulg. Prievcnit [Ps 18" prwvcnerunt] vie in die 
ajfliitionis mete, Cov. in Ps 18"* 'They prevented 
me in the tyme of my trouble,' ChejTie [' Parch- 
ment' ed.] 'They surprised me in the day of my 
calamity,' RV 'They came upon me in the day of 
my cafamity'); Job 3'' 'Why did the knees 
prevent me?' (LXX Tea ri 6^ avvrivTj^ativ ^ol ra 
yifara ; Vulg. Quare exccptits genibus? Gen. ' Why 
did the knees prevent me ? ' RV ' Why did the 
knees receive me?'); 30'' 'The days of affliction 
prevented me' (LXX irpo^ipSaadf lu ri^^pai inaxlas, 
\\\\i^. prtEvenerunt me dies ajflittionis, Cov. 'The 
dayes of my trouble are come upon me,' Dou. 
' The dayes of afliiction have prevented me,' 
RV ' Days of affliction are come upon me') ; Am 
9'° 'The evil shall not overtake nor prevent us' 
(LXX ou ;t7j iyyia-Q oi)5^ tii] yivrirax 44* ^Mas rdi KaKd, 
Vulg. non veniet super nos malum. Driver 'come 
in front about us') ; 1 Mac 6-'' ' If thou dost not 
prevent them quicklj', they will do greater things 

•The LXX is different, rit a,Tirr^rt*«ti fA*t uai i>reu«»i7; St. 
Paul therefore is nearer to the Heb. than to the L.\X in lie 113^ 

than these ' (^di' /nij wpoKaTaXi^ri airovs, Vulg. Nisi 
prcevencrvs cos, Cov. ' If thou dost not prevent 
them,' RV ' If ye are not beforehand with them') ; 
10'^ ' What have we done that Ale.xander hath 
prevented us in making amity witli the Jews to 
strengthen himself?' (irpoitpOaKev rjiids, \il\". pros- 
occupavit nos, Cov. 'hath prevented U'*,' RV 'hath 
been beforehand with us ) ; 2 Mac 14^' ' Knowing 
that he was notably prevented by Judas' policy ' 
(Srt y^vvalia^ virb roO ivopbs iiyrpaTyjyqTai, A^ulg. 
fortiter se a viro prwventtim, Cov ' When he 
knewe that Machabeus had manfully prevented 
him,' RV ' When he became aware that he 
had been bravely defeated by the stratagem of 

Take the following as illustrations : 

Fuller, ilul;/ Warre, 214, ' Was he old? let him make the more 
speed, lest envious death should prevent him of this occasion of 
honour'; Hohj State, 154, 'Expect not, but prevent their 
craving of thee'; Adams, Expoiiitiun upon Slid Peter, 65, 
'Satan's employment is prevented, when he finds thee well 
employed before he comes ' ; Knox, Wurks, iii. 319, ' Pet*r was 
synckinge downe, and loked for no other thyng but present 
death, and yet the hande of Christe prevented hym' ; Milton, 

' Doth God exact day-labour, light denied t 
I fondly ask. But Patience, to prevent 
That murmur, soon replies. God doth not need 
Either man's work or his own gifts.' 

J. Hastings. 

PREY. — Prey, from hat. prceda, booty (perhaps 
irou\ prce-hendu, to seize beforehand), through Old 
Fr. praie, preie, is now narrower in meaning than 
formerly. In AV it includes booty or spoil. Heb. 
words properly denoting a wUd beast's prey are 
(1) IIP tereph, from r^-e? to tear, to rend (the 
verb itself is tr. ' prey ' in Ps 17" ' Like as a 
lion that is greedy of his prey,' fpa^ "jio;:, AVm 
' that desireth to ravin,' Cheyne ' longing to tear 
in pieces '). Tereph is tr. ' prey ' in Gn 49', Nu 23-'', 
Job 4" 24' (RV 'meat'), Ps 76* 104-' 124", Is 5» 
31*, Ezk 19'- " 22^--', Am 3*, Nah 2'-" 3'. This 
is also the proper meaning of (2) ^nn hethcph (from 
[ion] to seize), and it is so tr. in its only occurrence, 
Pr 23^ 'She also lieth in wait as for a mey,' 
AVra 'as a robber,' which is the RV text, RVm 
'as for a prey.' Also (3) li 'ad (from .17:; to 
attack?), means 'prey,' and is so tr. in Gn 49", 
Is 33-'', Zeph 3', its only occurrences (against the 
view of Hitzig and others that it is ny in this 
sense that appears in tT'Z% of Is 9° •'>, .see DUl- 
mann, ad loc). And (4) S:i( 'ohhel, which means 
'food,' is legitimately tr. 'prey' in Job 9'* 39®. 
But all the remaining words mean biiutij or spoil 
taken in war or snatched as one's share. The 
cliief word is 13 baz (from in to plunder, take 
as siioil ; the verb itself is rendered ' take for 
a prey' in Dt 2» 3', Jos S^- " 11'*, Est 3'^ 8"; 
' make a prey ' in Ezk 26'- ; and ' prey upon ' in 
Jer 30"). A late form of baz, .113, is tr. 'prey' in 
Neh 4* ('give them for a prey,' RV 'give them 
up to spoiling,' Anier. RV 'for a spoil'). Est 9"-" 
(RV 'spoil'), Dn 11^ (so RV). The common word 
SSf* sA(Z2u/{fiom V'jy' to plunder, the Hithpolel is tr'' 
' make oneself a prey ' in Is 59"), which over sixty 
times is rendered 'spoil,' is tr'' 'prey' in Jg S'"'"' 
8-"--» (RV 'spoil'). Is 10- (RV 'spoil'), Jer 2P 38» 
39'* 45' (so RV). The only remaining word is nipy? 
mal/cuah, which sinii)ly means something captured 
(from np"? to take), which is given as ' prey ' in AV 
and RV'in Nu 3 1 "• '»• -•«• ", Is 49«- " : in Nu 31» 
AV gives ' booty,' RV ' prey.' 

For prey meaning booty of. Merlin (in Early 
Eng. Text. Soc), ii. 152, 'So thei entred in to the 
londe, and toke many prayes, and brent townes 
and vilages, and distroyed all the contreea'i 
Chapman, Iliads, ii. 205 — 

'Come, fly 
Home with our ships ; leave this man here to perish 
with his preys' ; 




and Sliaks. // Ilcnry VI. IV. iv. 51— 

'The r;u»ciil neople, thirsting; aft*r prey, 
Join with the traitor, ami Ihoy jointly swear 
To spoil the city and your royal court.* 

J. Hastixg.s. 

PRICE (from Lat. pretium, worth, value, thidiigh 
Old Fr. pris, preis) means in AV the worth of a 
person or thing in the widust sense, and not in 
uioiiey only. See esjjecially Mt 13'" ' When he 
had fc)und one pearl of great price ' (f ra woXimiiof 
liapyapiTTiv), and 1 P 3' ' the ornament of a meek 
and qtiiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of 
great price' (iroXirreX^s). Cf. Chaucer, Sir Thopas, 
18.1, ' Men speke of romances of prys ' ; He 13* 
Tind. ' Let wedlocke be had in pryce in all 

The verb to price (spelt 'prise') occurs in Zee 
11'* 'A goodly price that I was prised at of them.' 
Cf. Mt 27" Rhera. 'They tooke the thirtie pieces 
of silver, the price of the priced, whom they did 
price of the children of Israel.' J. HASTINGS. 

PRICK.— See GOAD in vol. ii. 194". 


1. The names kijhin and Uwi. 

2. The priesthowi in the earliest timea. 
8. The priesthood from David to Josiah. 

4. The priesthood according to Deuteronomy. 

6. The priesthood from Josiah'a reform to the Exile. 

0. The priesthood in Ezokicl's State of the future. 

7. The priesthoofl from Ezekiel to Ezra. 

8. The priesthood according to the law contained in the 

'Priestly Wriliny." 
o. The priests in the IsM of BoUnese and in par. 
ticular t6r6th. 

b. The Aaronite pricsta. 

c. The high priest. 

d. The Levites. 

e. The 8er%'ing women. 

f. The revenues of the priests and Leiit«a. 

g. Tlie date of the pnestly system in the 'Priestly 

•. The priesthood from Ezra to the Chronicler. 
10. The priesthood after OT times. 

a. Priests and Levites. 

b. The revenues ol the priests and Lerites. 
0. The duties and olKi es of the priests. 


(Thronghont this article the ahbreviation Getch., when not 
preceded by an author's name, stands for Baudissin's GegchichU' 
aes atUetst. Prietiterthumg, Leipzig, 1889. Whenever a citation 
consifits simply of an author's name and the number of a page, 
the reference is to that work of his whose title will be found 
In the Literature at the end of the article.] 

1. The Names KObE.v and LUirt.—The name 
for ' priest ' in the OT is kohen (;n2). The same 
word driD) is met with in Phtcnician inscriptions as 
the oliicial name of the priest, as well as tlie 
feminine form p:n3. The corresponding word in 
Arabic, kAhin, is employed to designate the sooth- 
sayer. It is per se quite conceivable that the 
priests of the Hebrews were originally soothsayers 
(Stade, GVI, Bd. i., Uerlin, 1887, p. 471; cf. 
Kuenen, De God-idicnst vun Israel, Bd. i., Haarlem, 
1869, p. 101). There are, certainly, no traces in 
the or of ecstatic conditions on the part of the 
priests, but one of their most important functions 
in the earlier history of Israel was the giving of 
oracles by means of the lot. A reference to this is 
to be discovered in the Urim and Tlnmimim which 
are described as still present in the dress of the 
high j) But the Arabic usage is not decisive 
for the original meaning of the word kohcn ; the 
sense borne by kdhin ma}' be secondary, for the 
Arabs borrowed largely, in matters connected 
with the cullus, from tlie Israelites (.so also Van 
Hoonacker, Sncerdoce, etc. p. 235 f, ). The ecstatic 
form of prophecy apiiears in the OT coupled with 
priestly lunctionH only in the story of the youth of 
Samuel, to whom God speaks in a revelation, while 
he is odiciating as priest at the sanctuary (1 iS 
3*"'). Ihis unusual coupling of the priestly and 

the prophetic office may be due in this instance to 
the combination of two conceptions of the jierson 
of Samuel : one of which thought of him, as is the 
case for the most j)art in the story of his youth, as 
priest ; whereas the other, which alone has sur- 
vived in the narratives relating to his latei 
activity, thought of him as prophet. 

The root meaning of the word kohcn does not 
appear to speak in favour of its being a designa- 
tion of the 'seer.' Derived from a verb kclTian, 
probably equivalent in meaning to kiin ' stand,' 
kohcn will be explained most simply as ' he that 
stands.' In other instances, too, tlie expression 
' stand (icy) before Jahweli ' is used of the priestly 
ollice, especially of the service at the altar wliicli 
the priest performs standing. This last, then, is 
perhaps what is referred to also in the name 
ku/iai, which will then designate the priest as 
oHerer, or, since ' stand before one ' is said of 
service in general, as servant of the deity. This 
general conception deserves the preference, because 
in ancient times it is not the oll'ering of sacrilice 
but other functions thtit ajipear as the .special 
dut}' of the priests. The sense of ' servant ' is 
obtained for kOhCn also by Hitzi" (on Is 61'"), who 
connects the word with the I'i'el kihen (Is 61'" = 
I'rn ' make ready ' ; elsewhere, indeed, kihen is a 
derivative from kohen [see Ewald, Heb. Sprache, 
§ 120c]), to which he assigns the sense ' parare, 
apt are, and then ministrare.' 

The word kdnurim (a""!C^) is used in the OT only 
of heathen priests. It answers to the word idd 
found in Aramaic inscriptions, Sj-r. kiimrd ' jiriest,' 
and hence in the OT is manifestly a word bor- 
rowed along with their idolatr}' trom the Ara- 

In Deuteronomy the priests are called ' Levite 
priests ' (c"ij-ci cxr^-), and already in a very ancient 
narrative in tlie Bk. of Judges (clis. 17 f.) we lind 
a ' Levite ' ("i^) regarded as haWng a special call to 
priestly functions. In like manner the Jehovistic 
book of the Pentateuch (JE) conttiins a tradition, 
according to which assigned priestly rights 
to the 'sons of Levi' (Ex 32-"^- [whether 32='>'^- 
belonged to the original Jehovistic book has, 
indeed, been doubted by Kuenen, De bockcn des 
ouden vc.rbonds-, Leiden, 188711'., § 13, note 21] ; 
cf. Jos 13"- !» 18', see Gesch. p. 100 f.). In the 
prophetical writings the name ' Levites ' occurs 
tor the lirst time in the Bk. of Jeremiah (33"*' 
' Levite priests ' n-'il^n D'}"in), in a section which is 
wanting in the LXX, and is pretty certainly not 
the work of Jeremiah, but, judging from v.", was 
probably composed by an exile in Babylon. 
During the Exile the term ' Levites ' is wit- 
nessed to by Ezekiel. But, in view of Jg 17 f., 
there can be no doubt of the higher antiquity of 
the terra, evi n apart from the passages cited 
above, regarding which doubts have oeen expressed 
whether they belong to the pre - Deuterononiic 
elements of the Jehovistic hook. The Bk. of Dt 

fresiipposes the name as generally current, and 
)t 33, in which (vv.*"") Levi is represented as 
holder of the priesthood, dates to all appearance 
from a i)eriod prior to the Fall of Samarin, 

Tlie view of the author of the Deuteronomic law 
(18'), as well as that expressid in the Blessing of 
Moses (Dt 33'"), and in the tradition embodied in 
the ' Priestly Writing' of the Pentateuch (also in 
Jos 13'*-"='[JE?]), is that the term 'Levites' indi- 
cates that the priests belong to a tribe of Levi. 
The origin of this priestly designiition and this 
tribal name is obscure. The Blessing of Jacob, 
which as a whole is not earlier than the mon- 
archical period, pre.supjioscs a tribe of Levi without 
any allusion to its call to |iriestly functions (tin 
49'''). On the other hand, the OT contains certain 
indications which appear to nresuppose that the 




word lewt was once regarded as the official name of 
the priest. In the Jehovistie book Aaron as dis- 
tinguished from Moses is called ' the Levite ' (Ex 
4"), although the two are cone^eived of as brotliers. 
In this passage there is certainly no reason to 
pronounce (with Nowack, p. 99) the designation 
an interpolation introduced under the influence of 
the Priests' Code, for such an influence would have 
led to Aaron's being called, not 'the Levite,' but 
' the priest.' The Levite who figures in Jg 17 f. is 
of the tribe of Judah, and hence, apparently, does 
not belong to a special tribe of Levi, unless per- 
haps he belonged to Judah merely as a settler, as 
appears to be the interpretation adopted in what 
should probably be pronounced a gloss, namely, 
17' (cf., however, Gesch. p. 184 f.). In any case, it 
is conceivable that the word Icwt was originally an 
official name, and only came afterwards to be 
treated as tlie patronymic for the particular family 
or guild wliich was considered to have been called 
to priestly service. At all events the coincidence 
of a tribal name with the priestly designation 
cannot be accidental, and accordingly one may 
not assume on the ground of Gn 49'°- that there 
was a tribe of Levi which afterwards disappeared, 
and that the Levitical priests have no connexion 
with it. 

If the word leio( was once an official name, then 
it niiglit be possible that a reminiscence of this 
original sense has survived in an explanation of 
the word found in the Priests' Code (Nu 18-- *), 
although in itself this explanation is nothing more 
than a word - play. According to this passage, 
those who belong to the tribe of Levi are to 
attach themselves (yilldwil, nilwii) to Aaron, for 
the service of the tabernacle. The word Ihct is, 
as a matter of fact, probably to be derived from 
Ic'nvah, ' to twine, to attach oneself,' and might 
perhaps be used to designate an escort ' attachmg 
itself, such as the troop that escorted the wander- 
ing sanctuary of the nomad period of Israel's history 
(so Gesch. p. 73 f., foUowing others, especially de 
La<jarde). The word would thus be not strictly a 
designation of the priest, but of a body from which 
by j)reference the priests were chosen. Since a 
special body with a genealogical connexion had 
presumably to be conceived of as set apart for the 
above-named duty of escorting the ark, it might 
liappen in the end that lewi was taken as the 
tribal name of this body. 

This explanation of the word lewt as an official 
name, finds, however, no certain support in the 
history tliat has come down to us, and it must 
always remain a difficulty to conceive of an 
alle^'ed tribal name having originated from an 
official name, espec'iallj- as in Gn 49 we have a 
view of the tribe of Levi presented in which there 
is no allusion to its being a priestly tribe. For 
this reason also it is not likely that leioi is the 
name for foreigners, say E<rvptians, who had 
' attaclied ' themselves to the Hebrews (so, follow- 
ing others, Renan, Hist, du peuple (Tlsrnel, 
vol. i., Paris, 1887, p. 149 f., who makes Levi = 
inguilinus ; see, further, on this point, Gesch. 
p. 70 f.). Besides, the view that the Levites were 
originally non-Israelites is extremely improbable, 
for the reason that Moses, the deliverer of Israel, 
who is reckoned to the tribe of Levi, was certainly 
a Hebrew. Moreover, Levi, the father of the 
tribe, is represented as son of one of those two 
wives of Jacob whose birth was et^ual to his own, 
and who were his relations. Levi's descent then 
was regarded as a pure Hebrew one. Hence, 
taking everything into account, the more probable 
conclusion is that litoi was at first actuallv a 
tribal name, and only afterwards in a secondary 
way came to be treated as the official name of the 
priests because these were chosen from this tribe. 

It is not impossible that the tribal name Lei-i is 
connected with the name Leah (■"in'?) which is given 
as that of the niotlier of Levi (Wellhausen, 
Geschichte I.traels [Prolegomena •], 1878, p. 149 , 
Stade, ZATW, 1881, p. 115f.), in which case it 
may remain an open question whether in Leah we 
are to find, with Staue (i.e., following Wetzstein), 
an animal name, ' wild cow.' The difficulty in- 
volved in the circumstance that Gn 49'''- is 
acquainted mth a tribe of Levi but does not 
represent it as a priestly one, is not to be obviated 
by the assumption that this passage relates to pre- 
>Iosaic conditions (so Van Hoonacker, Screrdoee, 
etc. pp. 309, 311) ; for all the other sayings in the 
so-called Blessing of Jacob have to do with the 
time when' Israel was settled in Canaan, and even 
the scattering of Levi among Israel, spoken of in 
Gn 49', presupposes the settlement. There remains 
hardly any resource but to suppose that to the 
author of Gn 49'*- the want of a Levitical tribal 
territory presented itself so strongly as a punish- 
ment occasioned by the conduct of the father of 
the tribe, that he did not look beyond this penal 
condition of things to the honourable priestly 
vocation of the members of this tribe. W hat the 
conduct of the tribe had really been which occa- 
sioned the unfavourable judgment passed ujion it, 
is a question we cannot answer. It is held by H. 
Guthe {Geschichte cles Volkes Israel, Freiburg 
i. B., 1899, p. 169 f.) that certain descendants of 
a non-priestly dowerless tribe of Levi had pro- 
cured maintenance for themselves by undertaking 
priestly functions, and that in this way Levi 
became a priestly appellation. But this view, 
which might otherwise be a possible one, can 
hardly be regarded with favour, because such a 
condition of things would not account for the 
relatively ancient tradition as to tlie relations of 
the tribe of Levi to the person of Moses (see 
below, § 2). 

The above is the result of a consideration of the 
OT data. But if it should be established tliat 
in the Minsean inscriptions the word lavii'u is 
a term for ' priest,' and that this is connected 
with the OT Icict (Fr. Hommel, AHT, London, 
1897, p. 278 f.), it will be necessary after all to 
think of the latter as an official name, and that an 
ancient Semitic one (otherwise Van Hoonackei, 
Sacerdoce, etc. p. 31211'.). 

On bSnS ha-Uwt and bSn6 ha-Uwiyytm (rare and 
late for the usual hing Icwi), forms in which lemt is 
treated as a gentilic name, see Ed. Konig, ' Syn- 
taktische Excurse zum AT,' in SK, 1898, p. 537 ff. 

2. The PniESTHooD in the earliest Time.s. — 
As everywhere in the history of religion, tliere 
may be recognized also in the beginning of Hebrew 
historj' a period when no special priestly class 
existed. Of course it is upon an artificials^ con- 
structed basis that the view presented m the 
'Priestly Writing' (P) of the Pentateuch rests, 
according to which neither sanctuary nor sacrificial 
acts nor a priestly class had any existence before 
the Divine revelation given throu^li Moses. Even 
in the narratives of tlie Jeho\'ist^ic book, relatin;^ 
to the pre-Mosaic period, there are scarcely to be 
discovered any reminiscences of the then condition 
of the cultus ; but these narratives will hardly be 
wrong in representing relations which stil. per- 
sisted at a later period, as the only ones present in 
the patriarchal period, a-s when they describe the 
head^ of the family in the patriarchal house as 
exercising tlie priestly function of ofl'ering sacrifice. 
Besides this, we liave in the Jehovistie book a 
single mention, durin" the patriarclial period, of 
inquiring at an oracle (Gn 25^), and also one 
reference to the giving of tithes (Gn 28-). Both 
these allusions imply the existence of a sanctuary 
with a priest in tliarge of it. Here the narrators 




have momentarily forgotten the ancient situation 
wliicli is assumed elsewliere, yet witliout expressly 
naming the priest on either occasion. The author 
of the prologue of the Bk. of Job, again, intro- 
duees his liero, whom he conceives of as a 
shepherd-prince living in remote antiquitj- in the 
land of Uz, as olienng sacrifices for his family 
(Job 1» ; cf. 429'-, and contrast 12'» kohantm). The 
story of Gn 14'""^, whore Abraham is represented 
as giving tithes to Melihizedek the priest-king of 
Salem, is, in its present form, a glorilication of 
the later priesthood of Salem, i.e. Jerusalem. 

According to a narrativ e contained in the Jeho- 
vistic book, Moses instituted a special priestly body 
when he set apart the 'sons of Levi' for this pur- 
pose (Ex 32-''" J. In the first instance, Moses him- 
self, according to this book, performs the sacrificial 
act (Ex 24"). In that descriptive narrative, which 
makes him receive the Divine revelations in the 
holy t«nt outside the camp to which the people 
went 'to seek Jahweh' (Ex SS""-), the function of 
conniiunicating oracles appears as a distinction 
conferred only upon Moses personally. 15ut in this 
waj- he is clearly thought of as the presiding 
authority over the liolv tent — in other words, as a 
priest. The Priestly \Vriting, on the other hand, 
makes Moses otiiciate as priest only upon the 
occasion of the instalment of the priests in their 
olfice (Ex 29) ; and from this point onwards, accord- 
ing to this source, priestly functions are discharged 
only by Aaron and his sons, who are selected from 
the body of the tribe of Levi for this purpose. 
According to a prophetical discourse interpolated 
into the older text of the history of the youth of 
Samuel (1 S 2"'-}, God, during the bondage in 
Egypt, revealed Himself to the fathers' house of 
Eli, the priest of Shiloh, and cliose this house out 
of all the tribes of Israel, to be priests. Here too, 
then, without any mention indeed of Aaron or 
Levi, appears the conce|)tion of an institution of 
the priesthood in the time of Moses. This con- 
ception, in the form in which it here makes its 
appearance, cannot be of quite recent origin, since 
in opposition to the later claims of the Zadokite 
priesthood, which existed from the time of Solo- 
mon, it represents the Elida>, who were dill'erent 
from these, as the original legitimate priests. It 
is in itself quite credible that Muses, in his 
arrangements for the Israelii isli nation and its 
cult us, made provision for the performance of 
religious service by a special body, and it is a very 
plausible supposition that he who is represented 
as belonging like Aaron to the tribe of Levi, 
selected his own family for this ollice. Among 
the ancient Arabs as well, the priesthood was 
largely in of special famdies, wluth did 
not belong to the tribe amongst whom they exer- 
ci.sed their olfice (Wollliausen, lieste^, \>. 130 f.). 
Gutlie (Gcscliiclitc, \>. 21 f.) opi)Oses the view that belonged to the tribe of Levi, and holds 
that the priestly tribe first originated in Canaan. 
This later origin, however, is ditruult to prove, and 
along with it the objections tall, which are brought 
against a gcnealoj;ical connexion between Moses 
and the priestly tribe. / 

If li'uH actually stood origirtally for the retinue 
of the sacred ark, only individuals from this body 
would have been priests proper. Ajiart from this, 
it is in any not incredible that Moses shouhl 
have destined his own fiimily in ibe narrower 
sense to be priests, but that he should have chosen 
precisely the family of his brother Aaron is less 
likely. Aaron, it is true, is not only represented 
in 1' as the father of the priests, but even in JE 
OS 'the Levite' kot' iiox-/)' (Ex 4"). Yet he does 
not ajipcar to be known to all the strata of this 
last book ; and in all tlie pa.ssnges where mention 
is made of him he is a less individualized figure, 

to which features from the later historj' are trans- 
ferred in a prefigurative waj- (Gesch. p. 199). It is 
not imjiossible tiiat in his case we have to do with 
a personification, although no satisfactory explana- 
tion of his name 'AhAron has yet been discovered. 
With '(tr6n the designation of the sacred ark (a 
combination proposed, following the lead of others, 
by Kenan, I.e. p. 179), this name can hardlj-, in 
view of the different way in which it is written, 
have anything to do. 

In an ancient gloss to the narrative in the Bk. 
of Judges about the LeWte who first on Mt. 
Ephraim and afterwards at Dan officiated as 
priest, this Levite, to whom the priesthood at Dan 
traced its descent down to ' the carrying captive 
of the land ' (i.e. down to the overthrow of Ephraim 
in the Assyrian period), is described as a ' son of 
Gershom the son of Moses' (in Jg IS*" Menash-ihch 
is an alteration of the original Mosheh). Here, 
then, Moses himself may be viewed as father of 
the priests in general. But all the same it is 
difficult to understand the person of Aaron as a 
purely fictitious one, because there is no apparent 
reason whj' the priesthood should have exchanged 
the more glorious descent from the lawgiver for 
descent from a brother of his. Moses has been 
supposed to be referred to in Dt 33* as the repre- 
sentative, and then, presumably, as the father, of 
the priesthood ; but the context of this passage 
favours rather a reference to Aaron in this capacity 
(Gesch. p. 7G), in harmony with which is the cir- 
cumstance that Dt 33 probably had its origin in 
Ephraim, and we find traces that it was in Ephraim 
that Aaron first came to be looked upon as father 
01 the priests (see below, § 3, on the bull-worship of 

If really from the time of Moses one special 
body was regarded as called to the luiesthood, yet 
it is by no means the case that from that time it 
alone exercised priestly functions. Long after 
Moses, it is not contested that men of non-Levitical 
descent discharged the j)ricst's ollice occasionally 
or even permanently. In the latter case they 
probably passed as adopted into the tribe of Levi, 
which accordingly we arc not to think of as having 
originated in a purely genealogical w.ay. Only, one 
can hardly, with W ellhau.scn, ajipeal in favour of 
this to what is said in Dt 33" about Levi's having 
renounced his kinship. Seeing that in this pas- 
sage the denying of his sons is also spoken of, the 
relerence must be understood not of the loosenini; 
of connexion with a family, but of impartial officiiu 
action, without regard to family interests, in allu- 
sion to the narrative of Ex 32-''- -■" (Gesch. p. 77; 
Sellin, p. 11011'.; Van Hoonacker, Saccrdoce, etc. 
p. 133). As in Dt 33 the whole tribe of Levi 
appears as in possession of the priesthood, so 
elsewhere down to a late period no trace is to be 
found of a distinction between Levites and priests 

No special weight is to be laid on the circum- 
stance that, according to the statement of one 
source of tlie Jehovistic book, em]i|oycd 
'young men of the children of Israel' to oiler 
sacrifice (Ex 24'; it is impossible that either liere 
or in I S 2'^- '" na'ar,\n its sense of 'servant,' can 
be a designation of the jiriest as the servant 
[' »ntnis<rc '], namely, of the cultus or of the people 
'in the celebration of Divine worship' [so Van 
Hoonacker, Scicerdore, etc. p. 140 f.J), for this 
happened prior to the appointment (recorded, in- 
deed, as it seems, by a dillcrent narrator) of the 
Levites to the priestly service (Ex .TJ-'""'). As early 
as the arrival at Sinai we read in Ex 19'^- ** (a 
narrative in any from another hand than 
3.j.7itr.) Qf priests [Gesch. p. .IS 11.) without being 
tohl whether these are to be thought of as Levite* 
or not. It is mentioned in the Jehovistic book, a.t 




an arrangement in force all through the lifetime 
of Moses, that his attendant, Josliua, who is repre- 
sented as of non-Levitical descent (Nu 13', P), did 
not depart out of the holy tent (Ex 33")- The 
Ephraimite Micah, in the period of the judges, 
appoints as priest in his private sanctuary, first of 
all one of hxs sons (Jg 17"). Gideon, of the tribe 
of Manasseh (Jg 6""-}, and Manoah of the tribe of 
Dan (13"), offer sacrifice with their own hands. 
Under Saul the Israelites pour out the blood of the 
capt\ired animals at the altar stone without any 
priestly interposition (1 S 14"). At a still later 
period the non-priestly prophet Elijah sacrifices 
with his own hand (1 K 18*"^). While the sacred 
ark, in the course of its wanderings, tarried in the 
house of Abinadab, who was plainly no priest, it 
was served by his sons (1 S 7', 2 S 6"-; the emen- 
dation of Van Hoonacker, Sacerdoce, etc. p. 171, is 
unwarranted). Of the ancient priestly prerogative 
of the fatlier of the house, a relic was preserved 
down to the latest times of the Jewisn cultus, 
in the slaughtering of the Paschal lamb by the 
fatlier of the house without any priest taking part 
in the ceremony (Ex 12«ff-[P] w."'- [JE]), although 
it is true, at the same time, that the sacrificial 
character of the Paschal lamb had been obliterated. 

Sacrificing was, then, manifestly, in early times 
not the exclusive function of a priestly class. The 
latter was certainly in existence. Yet even for 
admittance to this no special descent was requisite. 
Samuel, by birth an Ephraimite, yet, according to 
the representation contained in tlie history of his 
childhood, becomes, in fulfilment of a vow of his 
mother, a servant of Jahweh, clothed with the 
priestly eiihod, at the sanctuary at Shiloh (1 S 1"- 
211. 18) 'j'lje fjjgj that Samuel becomes a priest in 
consequence of a vow, shows that he was not one by 
descent ; and the representation of the Chronicler 
(1 Ch 6''- '*), according to which he is a Levite, is 
not, with Van Hoonacker {Sacerdoce, etc. p. 265 f.) 
and Girdlestone ('To what tribe did Samuel be- 
long ? ' in Expositor, Nov. 1899, pp. 385-388), to_ be 
ju'tified, as if Samuel were a Levite from Ephraira. 
^n the descriptions of Samuel's later life he appears 
not as a priest, but as one who, in the extraordi- 
nary capacity of shophet and nabV, presents the 
ofi'erings of the people (1 S 7°'' 16-^-)- A priestly 
class is presupposed by the oldest collection of 
laws, the so-called Book of the Covenant (Ex 22'), 
and yet, in an enactment later prefixed to this, the 
general right to sacrifice is assumed in the demand 
made of the Israelites as a whole : ' An altar of 
earth thou shall make unto me, and shalt sacrifice 
thereon thy burnt - ofi'erings and thy shUnmim- 
offerings' (Ex 20^). When, on the other hand, in 
the .lehovistic book the people of Israel is called 
'a kingdom of priests' (Ex ly""), this is certainly to 
be understood not of the actual exercise of priestly 
rights, but in a transferred sense as meaning that 
the whole of Israel stands in a priestly relation to 

Where a professional priest was not available, 
young men appear to have, by preference, replaced 
the father of the house in the exercise of his 
priestly function, or even to have acted as priests 
for a larger body. Of Moses we found it recorded 
that he aj)pointed young men to offer sacrifice. 
The Ephraimite Micah installs one of his sons as 
priest. Certain traces appear to point to a prefer- 
ence at one time for making firstborn sons priests, 
or even to indicate that in earlier times the whole 
of the firstborn sons were regarded as destined for 
holy service — an idea which certainly can hardly 
at any time have been strictly carried out in 
practice. The circumstance that Samuel, accord- 
ing to the story of his childhood, was a firstborn 
Eon, is of no importance, because it was not as 
lach that he was set apart for priestly functions. 

bat in consequence of a vow of his mother. But 
in the ancient code, the Book of the Covenant 
(Ex 22'^ [Eng. »]), the demand is made that the 
firstborn son be given to Jalnveh. The spirit of 
this book, whether it belongs to the time of the 
Judges or to the earlier monarchical period, appears 
to exclude the intcrjiretation that the firstborn is 
to be oti'ered in sacrifice to the deitj' ; and then 
there remains scarcely any other possibility except 
to understand the ' giving ' to mean consecration 
to holy service [Gesch. p. 55 ff.; Smend, Alttut. 
Religionsgeschichte'', Freiburg i. B., 1899, p. 282 f., 
note 3; cf. Kamphauscn, Das Verlialtnis dea 
Mcnschenopfers zur israel. Religion, Bonn, 1896, 

£66). In the Priestly Writing it is said of the 
evites that they are ' given ' to Jahweh (Nu 8"), 
and even the consecration of Samuel is described 
by the term ' given '(IS 1"). 

In spite of this freedom in the matter of sacri- 
ficial arrangements, from early times it was con- 
sidered an advantage in the regular and constant 
service of a sanctuary to have a ' Levite ' for priest. 
When one of these happens to pass the sanctuary 
of Micah the Ephraimite, the latter gives the 
preference to hira as priest over his own sin (Jg 
IT'""-) ; and the Uanites v ho wi«ih to establish for 
themselves a new sanctuary in their new home, do 
not let the opportunity slip to obtain by force the 
services of this same Levite (18'"'-)- Even if 
in the time of Moses a single family amongst the 
Levites had possession of the priesthood proper, 
in subsequent times, at all events, this was viewed 
not as their exclusive privilege, but as that of the 
Levites in general. Nevertheless, the term 'Levite' 
nowhere occurs as the exact equivalent of ' priest,' 
a circumstance which is not without importance 
in its bearing upon the origin of the term. The 
above-named Micah the Ephraimite is represented 
as saying, ' The Levite has become my priest' (Jg 

As to the instalment in the priestly office, even 
that ancient narrative in the Bk. of Judges 
mentions certain formalities which in a modified 
form are retained in the later ceremonial law of 
the Pentateuch. Micah 'fills the hand' of one 
of his sons, so that he becomes his (Jg 
17'). He does precisely the same thing afterwards 
to the Levite (v.'"). Wherein this ' filling of the 
hand ' consisted is not clear. It has been suggested 
that it means the handing over of the earnest 
money (Vatke, Wellhausen), which appears to be 
favoured by the fact that the Levite who renders 
priestly services to Micah certainly speaks of him- 
self as ' hired ' by the latter (Jg 18^). This hiring, 
liowever, need not refer to a sum of money paid 
down, but may consist in the arrangement about 
an annual salarv, clothing, and maintenance (17'°). 
It is not at all likely that Micah hired his own 
son with a piece of earnest moneys and in any 
case the narrator in the Jehovistic book (Ex 32'^) 
was not thinking of earnest money when he makes 
Moses say to the sons of Levi tliemselves : ' Fill 
your hands to-day for Jahweh.' Still less likely 
is it that the expression ' till the hand ' refers to 
the handing over of the arrows which are alleged 
to have been used in giving tlie priestly oracle 
(Sellin, p. 118 f.). This interpretation is based 
upon Ex 32-'', where, however, Ic-Jahivch stamling 
alone cannot mean 'on behalf of Jahweh ' (sc. take 
hold of the arrows), but shows that 'fill your hand' 
refers in some way to a consecration to Jahweh, an 
instalment into sen-ice related to Him (still an- 
other interpretation of the 'filling the hand' in 
Ex 32™-" is adopted by Van Hoonacker, Sacerdoce, 
etc. p. IS'il. In the Priestly Writing the ex- 
pression ' fill the hand ' is retained in speaking 
of instalment into the priestly office (Ex 28'" al.), 
and the term 'fill-offering' (mllluim. Ex 29-- al.\ 




Is used of the ofi'ering which was presented at the 
consecration of Aaron and his sons to the priestly 
office. This oU'ering has the characteristic rite 
that Moses places certain portions of the sacrificial 
animal upon the hands of^ Aaron and his sons — in 
other words, fills the hands of those about to be 
consecrated with these portions of the sacrifice. 
What are specified are the parts of the animal 
which in sacrifice were burned upon the altar or 
which fell to the priests. The consecration cere- 
mony was meant thus to express that the priest is 
empowered to lay these pieces upon the altar, or, 
as the case may be, to take them for himself. 
Accordingly, it is, to say the least, not improbable 
that the expression ' fill the hand,' used of installa- 
tion in the priestly office, had in view from the 
first such a handing over of sacrificial portions as 
pointed to the priestly functions {GascA. p. 183 f.; 
so also Weinel, art. ' n^o und seine Derivate,' in 
ZATW xviii. [1898] p. 61). Such a solemn intro- 
duction to office might well be employed even by 
the layman Micah in the case of the Levite, as of 
one who was not installed by him as a priest in 
general but as his own priest (otherwise Nowack, 
p. 121). 

But it may be, further, that the expression 
' fill the {hand ' had not originally a special refer- 
ence to introduction to the priestly office, for in 
Assyrian the corresponding kdtH mullU has the 
general sense of 'give, appoint, enfeoff, present' 
(Nowack, p. 120 f., following Hal^vy ; cf. on the 
Assj'rian expression, Frd. Delitzsch, Assyr. Hand- 
worterb. s.v. k'jd, p. 409). Even if the above was 
the original sense of the Hebrew expression, it was 
no longer understood in Ex 32^. 

In early times the priest, even when he was a 
young man, was called by the title of honour, 
' father ' (Jg 17'" 18"). The priests who served at 
any of the sanctuaries of ancient Israel were 
marked outwardly by the linen ephod they wore 
(1 S 2"). They lived, as we learn in the case of 
Eli and Samuel, in the sanctuary (1 S 3^-)- There 
thej offered the sacrifices on the altar, a work in 
which at the more frequented places of worship 
they were assisted by servants ( 1 S 2''- "). Portions 
of the offerings presented were assigned thera for 
their maintenance (1 S2'"'-); whether these were 
definitely fixed (Gesch. p. 208, and against this 
Nowack, p. 125), or were left to the pleasure of 
the offerer, can scarcely be determined.* At the 
private sanctuaries, as we are told of Micah the 
Ephraimite, the owner of the sanctuary paid his 
priest a salary and supplied his clotliiiig and hia 
food (Jg 17'°). While the offering of s.ic rifice was 
in early times open to others as well as to the 
priests, it is only of professional priests that it is 
recorded that they gave oracles. Micah's Levite 
consults fiod at the request of others (Jg 18° ; on 
the giving of oracles by the priests among the 
ancient Arabs, see Wellhau.sen, Ecite', p. 131 if.). 

As would appear from what we hear of Ahijah 
(Ahimelech) tne descendant of Eli (1 S 14'), and 
his son Ebiathar (Abiathar) the priest of Nob 
( 1 S -3"), it was only the chief priest of a considerable 
sanctuary who had another eiiliod different from the 
linen one, by means of which he cave oracles ( 1 S 
14""-, where for '(lr6n read 'ephud). In this must 
have been kept the oracle - lots, the prototype 
of the Urim (cf. 1 S 28") and Thuniniim of the 
later high priest. In the Blessing of Moses (Dt 
33"), Thuiiiiiiini and Urim are tluMight of as the 
special dower of Levi, and probably more specifi- 
callj' as that of Aaron. The name thummim, 

* NVe And traces that amon^ the Phoenicians and the liiihy- 
loniana, aa was doui>tlc8s tlic casn with all liighly {levetaped 
cults, the priests ho'l ttieir allowance from the otTerinf^s (Mce 
F. C. Movers, Da« Opfencetteii der Karthager^oininenlar zur 
Op/eHaJel txm ilarmUle, Phonlilsche Texte, Thell il., Brcslau, 
IS47, pp lis, 1269.). 

'right,' points to the fact that the giving of 
priestly oracles originally served mainly the 
interests of the administration of justice, which 
was in the last resort the task of the priests. In 
order to decide a difficult lawsuit the parties are 
required by the Book of the Covenant to appear 
'before God' (Ex 22'), i.e. to appeal to a decision 
by the priestly lot. The same place which bciirs 
the name ^dae-iA, 'sanctuary,' is called also '.£'re- 
■mishpdt, ' well of decision ' (Gn 14'). 

In the administration of justice, but no doubt 
also in the indication of what was ritually proper, 
and in general of what was well-pleasing to the 
deity, will thus have consisted the turdh, ' instruc- 
tion ' or ' direction ' (see La\v IN OT, vol. iii. p. 64''), 
which from ancient tunes appears as the duty of 
the priests (Dt 33'"). It has been suggested that 
the root-word (hGrdh) in this notion of 'instructing' 
should be traced back to the casting of the sacred 
lots. But this is scarcely probable in view of the 
use of turdh also for the teaching of the prophets, 
which has notliin" to do with oracles obtained by 
lot. Rather had Yi6rdh, which is used of shooting 
arrows (1 S 20^ al.), the meaning of 'aim at some- 
thing,' and then ' lead to a goal,' ' point out some- 
thing' (Gn 46'*), 'instruct' {Ge.'<ch. p. 207, note 1). 

When they settled in Canaan, the Israelites had 
taken over the sacred places of the Canaanites and 
set up the worship of Jahweh at them. These 
sanctuaries did not all enjoy the services of a 
Levitical priest, as we see from the fact that a son 
of Micah the Ephraimite acted as priest. The 
numbers of the Le\'ites were probably insufficient 
to meet the needs of such service. They will have 
settled only at the more important sanctuaries. 
A reminiscence of this is preserved in the Priestly 
Writing of the Hexateuch, which conceives of 
specially appointed Levitical or priestly cities. 
Some or the names of cities specified in this con- 
nexion clearly point to ancient places of worship 
(cf. below, § 8, f end, and g). 

The most important sanctuary in the time of 
the .Judges was the temple at Shiloh, whose annual 
festivals were resortecl to by a wide circle of 
worsbippers. There officiated Eli and his house, 
which traced back its priestly rights to the time 
of the Exodus from E<jrypt (1 S 2-'''), and thus at all 
events belonged to the category of the Levites. 
It may be that the house of Eli also laid claim to 
descent from the priestly brother of Moses, namely 
Aaron ; so at least the matter was viewed by 
those in later times who traced the descent of the 
Elida; to Ithamar a son of Aaron (1 Ch 24'). 
But it may be also, as we have seen, that originally 
the priest of the Exodus, and even the ancestor of 
the house of I'^li was held to be Moses himself, for 
whom his brother might come to be substituted 
only in after- times (Wellhausen, Proleqinncna^, 
p. 146 f.). In the history of the childhood of 
Samuel, Eli is introduced abruptly (1 S 1") ; a pas- 
sage paving the way for the mention of him must 
have been lost, and in this his genealogy was prob- 
ably given. Eli, as no doubt was the case 
equally with the head of the family elsewhere, 
held the position of chief priest in the temple, as 
may be gathered from the relation to him of 
Samuel and of his own sons. Eli's sons perished 
in the wars with the Philistines, and with them 
probably also the sanctuary of Shiloh, which is 
never afterwards mentioned as existing (1 S 4"''-)- 
The house of Eli was not, however, completely 
extinguished ; a great-grandson of his, Ahijah the 
son of Aliitub, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eli, 
bore Mie cplioil in the time of Saul (1 S 14'). He is 
eviiiiiilly identical with the son of Ahitub whom 
another source calls Ahimelech. This Ahimelech, 
apparently as chief priest, had his residence, along 
with his lathers' house, at Nob (1 S 21"- 22""), 




the 'city of the priests' (22"). Here then it would 
appear that the ancient priestly family of the 
Exodus gathere<l itself together after the downfall 
of Sliiloh. Renan (Histoire, i. 420, note 1) finds 
dilhculty in the identification of Ahijah with 
Aliimelech, because the priests of Nob can, he 
thinks, hardly have belonged to the family of the 
priests of Shiloh. But why not, and why should 
it be necessary to impute an error to 1 K 2-'', where 
Ebiathar (Ahimelcch's son) is reckoned to the 
house of Eli? There was similarly at Dan a 
Levitical priesthood which traced its descent to 
the before-mentioned LeWte of Micah the Eph- 
raimite, and consequently to Moses (Jg 18**). 

3. The Priesthood from David to Josiah. — 
When David had acquired for his capital the 
Jebusite citadel, he conferred upon it the distinc- 
tion of transferring the sacred ark to the summit 
of its hill, the threshing-floor of Araunah tlie 
Jebusite. By this act he established a royal 
sanctuary of which the king was the proprietor, 
in the same sense in which the private person 
Micah was the owner of the sanctuary set up by 
him. David and, subsequently to the building of 
the temple by Solomon on Mt. Zion, his suc- 
cessors assumed a kind of chief priestly position 
at the .sanctuary of Jerusalem.* David presented 
olierings, manifestly discharging priestly functions 
in person, for it is said that he ' made an end of 
ottering' (2 S 6'''') ; he pronounced the liturgical 
blessing (v.'*), and danced in the priestly garb, the 
linen ephod, before the ark of the covenant (v.'*). 
Of Solomon, too, it is recorded that, at the dedica- 
tion of the temple, he ottered sacrifice (1 K 8'' ^'^■), 
and that three times in the year he offered burnt- 
otterings, and peace-otferings and ' sweet smoke ' 
(1 K y-*). There is no mention of priests on tins 
occasion ; their presence may, however, be taken 
for gTante<l ss self-evident, for, of course, Solomon 
could not, without help of some kind, have over- 
taken all the dedicatory oUerings. From the 
above statements, then, it is not clear to what 
extent Solomon in his offering discharged priestly 
functions in person. But it is difficult to suppose 
him to have acted in this matter difi'erently from 
David. In any case the blessing which, standing by 
tlie altar, he pronounced upon the people (1 K 8") is 
a priestly act. Of the first king of tlie Northern 
kingdom, Jeroboam, we are expressly told that he 
ascended the altar of Bethel and made the ottering 
(1 K 12^), although he too had priests at his 
command (v."). The position of the kings of the 
Northern kingdom in relation to its chief sanctuary 
at Bethel will have been practically the same as 
that of the kings of Judah to the temple at 
Jerusalem. Under Jeroboam 11. Amaziah the 
priest at Bethel speaks of the sanctuary there as 
a royal one (Am 7'^) ; Amaziah, that is to say, 
officiated under the king's commission. Of one of 
the later kings of Judah, Ahaz, it is expressly re- 
corded that he ascended the temple altar, kindled 
the ottering, poured out the dnnk-oU'ering, and 
sprinkled the altar with the sacrificial blood (2 K 
16'-' ). Conseq^uently it is at least not an incorrect 
condition of things that is presupposed in Chronicles 
when we are told how Uzziah, the second jncdo- 
cessor of Ahaz, ottered incense upon the altar of 
incense (2 Ch 26"'^). All that belongs to the later 
standpoint of the Chronicler is the notion that this 
ottering by the king in person was an illegitimate 
encroachment upon the priestly privileges, and that 
Uzziah was on that account punished with leprosy ; 
perhaps the assumption of a sjiecial altar for 
incense bespeaks a later viewpoint. 

At least the earliest kings looked upon the 

* Among the Assyrians as well the kin^ was at the same time 
the chief priest (see Alf. Jeremias, Die bau.-axnj/r. VoretfUuiigen 
vom Ltben nach dem Tode^ Leipzig, 1887, p. 07, note 1). 

Jerusalemite priests as subordinate officials whom 
they could appoint and depose. From the massacre 
which Saul perpetrated amongst the priests at 
Nob who held with David (1 S 22"''''), none escaped 
of the family of Eli but Ebiathar, who fled for 
refuge to David, carrying ■with him the oracle- 
ephod (1 S 22-" 23"). He was installed by David 
as priest in attendance on the sacred ark on Mt. 
Zion. Along with him Zadok is named as David's 
priest (2 S 8", where read ' Ebiathar son of 
Aliimelech '). Both have their sons at their side 
as priests (2 S 15"-'*). Ebiathar must have held 
the higher rank of the two, for we are told in 
1 K 2^ that Solomon, after deposing Ebiathar, 
gave his post to Zadok. Ebiathar, with his son 
Jonathan, had taken the side of Adonijah when 
the latter conspired against his father David (1 IC 
jis. 4^ff.) By command of David, Zadok anointed 
Solomon king (1 K P-^-). and Ebiathar was 
banished. He retired to his landed property at 
Anathoth (1 K 2^*'-), where in the time of Jere- 
miah we still find a priestly family settled, to 
which Jeremiah himself belonged (Jer 1' 32**0- 
Accordingly Jeremiah was probably a descendant 
of Ebiathar, and thus of the ancient priestly 
family which dated its possession of the dignity 
from the time of the Exodus (see above, § 2). 

The house of Zadok continued in possession of 
the Jerusalemite priesthood. This we know from 
the exilian prophet Ezekiel, who constantly speaks 
of the Jerusalemite priests as ' the sons of Zadok.' 
What was Zadok's descent is not clearly to be 
seen. This much only is plain, that he did not 
belong, like Ebiathar, to the old-privileged priestly 
family, for a piopliecy, put into the mouth of an 
unnamed man of God in the time of Eli, announces 
that God, after He had chosen in Egypt tlie 
fathers' house of Eli for the priesthood, had now 
rejected this house, and would apjioint for Him- 
self a trustworthy priest who should walk after 
Jahweh's heart and mind, for whom Jahweh would 
build an enduring house, and who should walk 
before Jahweh's anointed for ever (1 S 2-'"'-)- This 
prophecy is in 1 K 2-'' understood of the installa- 
tion of Zadok in the Jerusalemite priesthood, and 
was certainly so intended from the first, for — the 
only other conceivable supposition — to refer it to 
the priestly Samuel will not answer, seeing that 
Samuel is never represented as a king's priest. 
Thus, then, Zadok did not belong to the family or 
the fathers' house of Eli, and consequently not to 
the ancient priesthood. Zadok cannot, therefore, 
as Poels supposes, have really belonged, although, 
to he sure, later generations represented hira as 
belonging, to an ancient Aaronile family, namely 
that of the Eleazarites. This family, according 
to I'oels, had discharged the priestly duties at 
Nob, and when the national sanctuary was trans- 
ferred to Jenisalem, Zadok came from Nob to the 
cajtital (so, already, essentially. Movers, Kiitische 
Untersuchnngen ubcr die biblisihc Chronik, Bonn, 
1834, p. 294 f., according to whom Zadok was at 
first chief priest in the Jlosaic tabernacle at Gibcon 
[which Poels identifies with the sanctuary of Nob]). 
It is maintained by Van Hoonacker [Sacerdoce, etc. 
p. IGStt'.) that according to 1 S 2-'' the house of Eli 
was chosen 'non pas isoliiment,' but, together with 
others, as one particular family of the priesthood 
which includea a plurality of families ; but this 
notion is read into the text. Zadok is called the 
son of Ahitub (2 S 8"). In the state of the case 
just described, we are not to think of this Ahitub 
as the same as the grandson of Eli (1 S 14''). 
The above-cited oracle of the man of God gives 
undoubtedly the correct account of Zadok, for in 
later times, when the sons of Zadok had exclusive 
possession of the priesthood, men would not have 
attributed to them a prestige as priests less lofty 



in its origin than that of the Elidie who had now 
fiillen into the backfrround. Under these circum- 
stances it may be doubted whetlier Zadok was a 
Levite at all. No certain decision can be pro- 
nounced, because we do not know how much is 
included in the expression ' fathers' house ' of Eli 
in tlie above oracle. If it means the same thin^ 
as 'sons of Levi,' then Zadok was no Levite ; but 
it maj' be intended in a narrower sense, perhaps, 
to mean the house of Aaron. Since even prior 
to the time of David, as we saw from the story 
of the Levite of Micah the Ephraimite, it was 
considered desirable to have a Levite for priest, 
David is unlikely to have overlooked this advan- 
tage in the selection of Zadok, who primarily was 
his priest. Subsequent generations naturally did 
full honour to the genealogy of Zadok, whose 
descent was traced back to a son of Aaron, nay, 
to his eldest son Eleazar (1 Ch 24'). In the circum- 
stance that the later writers made the Elidit to be 
descended from another son of Aaron, namely 
I tliamar(lCh,/.c.), there is preserved a reminiscence 
of the diilerence in the descent of the two priestly 

The descendants of Ebiathar, when expelled 
from the priesthood at Jerusalem, are hardly likely 
to have all remained settled at Anathoth. Prob- 
ably a portion of thorn found employment at the 
sanituaries of the Northern kingdom, where they 
took part in the otticial worship of Jalnveh under 
the figure of a bull. In this way we may explain 
the narrative in the Jehovistic book, which attri- 
butes to Aaron a part in bull-worship. Ex 32'"- 
{Gesrh. p. 199 ; so (ireviously Th. N(ildeke, Untcr- 
suchnng&n zur Kritik dcs AT, Kiel, 18G9, p. 55, 
note). At all events the Northern kingdom too 
had an organized priestly body, as may be gathered 
from the story that, after the downfall of Samaria, 
a priest from amongst the exiles was sent back to 
Epliraim, to instruct the inhabitants of the land 
in the worship of the god of the land, i.e. Jahweh 
(2 K 17"'). 

liesides Ebiathar and Zadok and the son of Ebi- 
athar and the son of Zadok, there is mention of 
another otherwise unknown 'Ira as priest under 
David (2 S 2U-"'). According to the traditional 
text he was a Jairite, i.e. belonged to a Gileadite 
family, and was consequently no Levite ; but 
perlia[is the statement should be emended to the 
etlect that he was a Jattirite, i.e. belonged to the 
priestly city Jattir in Judah (so [following Thenius, 
ad lnc.'\ Gcsch. p. 192, and Lolir, (id loc), in which 
case the pos.sibiIity is not excluded that he was a 
Levite. In addition to him, Davids own sons are 
called in 2S8"'/io///)ni/n. In itself there is nothing 
unpossible in the view that David appointed 
members of his own non-Levitical family to be 
actual priests, for we see from the picture of 
Samuel as a priest that at that time and probably 
for long afterwards the priestly status was not at 
all bound up with a special descent. But, on the 
other hand, understanding IcCihiXnim in the 
literal sense, when applied to iJaviil's sons {as is 
done by Lohr and JI. P. Smith, ad loc), is the 
circumstance that just immediately before (v.") 
the priests of David, nanielj' Zadok and Ebiathar, 
have been already enumerated amongst the other 
court otiicials. Hence it is perhaps proliablo rather 
that the sons of David only bore the title of 
kdliilnim in the same way aa, in the time of 
Solomon, we find Zabud, a son of Nathan (prob- 
ably the son of David), called ' kO/ien, friend of 
the king' (1 K 4° [Van Uooiiacker, Succrdoce, etc. 

£28tJf., and Benzinger, ad luc, following B and 
uc. of the LXX, strike out the [n: ; but Kittel, 
ad luc, dofenus its genuineness]), where in any case 
' friend ' is a title. But kO/un can scarcely be the 
title of a court olUcial in the sense of ' representa- 

tive,' scilicet, of the king (so Klostermann, ad loc, 
who reads 2 S S" kOluinc hn-melckh). As little 
justilicatiou is there for giving up the statement 
in Samuel in favour of the dillerent expression of 
the Chronicler (1 Ch 18"), as is done by Van Hoon- 
acker, Succrdocc, etc. p. 275 f. Ilitzig's emenda- 
tion of kCihilnim to sokhiiiim, 'administrators' (Is 
22">), which is adopted afresh by Cheyue, rests 
upon the correct impression that from the context 
it nmst be a court office that is in view, and the 
emendation is not demonstrably wrong. Yet it 
would be surprising if in two passa-jes copj'ists 
erroneously introduced the word kohen in a context 
where this word must have struck them as strange. 
Perhajis, then, kOhCn is in both instances the 
origimil reading after all. Such a title as ko/icn 
niaj' be an imitation of the Pha-nicians, amongst 
whom members of the royal house were often 
invested with priestly olliccs (so Movers, and 
similarly Ewald ; see Gcsih. p. 191 f., and cf., 
further. Driver on 2 S 8", who is not quite decided 
as to the sense of kululnim in this passage, although 
he believes that it means priests of sumo kind). 

Although the Jud;can kings always reserved for 
them.selves a kind of chief iiricstly ijosition, yet in 
view of the importance of tlie temple at Jerusalem 
as the central sanctuary, and the considerable 
number of priests which such a sanctuary ])re- 
supp().>es, it is hardly jiossible to avoid su|iposing 
that amongst the Jerusalemite priests there was 
one who claimed the lirst jjlace, as had already 
been done at Shiloh by the head of the priestly 
family. The priest who evidently claimed this 
lirst place is in the Books of Kings called for the 
most ))art simply 'the kolicn' ; so Jehoiada (2 K 
l\»'- aL), Urijah (16""- ">'•), and llilkiah (i-J.^o al.). 
The same title is given in Is 8- to Uriah, and in 
Jer 29-'' to Jehoiada,* Along with this we have 
once in Kings (2 K 25'* = Jer 52**) the term 'head- 
priest' (kohcn hd-ro'sh) applied to Seraiah. This 
title in this instance (dili'erently in 2 S IS" where 
we should read lia-kOhCn hd-ro'sh) is certainly not 
due to later insertion (Nowack, p. 107, note 1), for 
in that case the designation 'high priest,' sanctioned 
by the Priests' Code of the I'entateuch, would 
have been cmplo3'ed. The title ' head-jiriest,' 
found nowhere else except in Ezr 7° and in Chron- 
icles, where it occurs along with 'high priest,' is 
certainly, for the very reason that it is not found 
in the Priests' Code, derived from earlier anticiuity. 
On the other hand, it is possible that the title by 
which the later high i)riest is distinguished. 

namely ha-kOhin Itfigadul, which is once apjilied 
to Jehoiada (2 K 12") and thrice to Hilkiah (22'- » 
^'i*), is due to antedating of this title on the part of 
the redactor of Kings wiio wrote during the Exile, 
or it niiiy even be a later insertion. The Deutero- 
nomic law uses the simple title ' the kOhcn ' to 
designate the chief juiest. 

The dignity and inlluence of the chief priest of 
Jerusalem must even in early times have been 
great. This comes out especially in the command- 
ing rOle which, about the miildle of the 9tli cent. 
n.C, was played by the chief ]iricst Jehoi.nda in 
connexion with the overthrow of ([ucen Athaliali 
and the proclamation of her grandson Joasli as 
king, in whose name Jehoiada at lirst directed 
the government (2 K ll'"- 12^).t The authority 

• It may, indeed, be doubted wlu-tlier in Jeremiah tiie refer- 
ence is tt> tlie banie Jclioiada, who wiu, cliief priest under Joa«h. 
Uenaii (//w(. ii. [ISSU] 323, note)ii"d Van llooimclter {.Sacenloct, 
ete. n. lf)S f.) conteBt it ; but nee llilzit; and Orut on Jer 'J1»'A 

t Tradition furnishes no warrant for rcconstruflitiL' the 
history with Rcnan (//t#f. ii. 323, 409, note 1), who ititriMluces, 
alon^'hido of Jelioiadu tlie priest, in 2 K ll-*, an oMIcit uf the 
(fuanl of the sjinie naiiii'. No priest, it in true, had the rinlit to 
euninion the army, but the priest Jelioiada could act iu accord 
with the chiefs of the army. That the latter allowed them- 
selves lo be led by him is ftu indiculioa of Uw respect paid tio 
his position. 




of the chief priest, however, scarcely extended, 
as a rule, beyond the sphere of the temple at 
Jerusalem, besides which there continued to 
exist even in Judah other places of worship 
with their own priests, down to the time of 
Josiah's reformation. Yet the prediction above 
referred to regarding the downfall of Eli's house 
represents the sur\'ivor3 of this house as begging 
of tlie royal priest to put them into one of the 
priests' offices that they might obtain a morsel of 
bread (1 S 2**). This may indicate that the chief 
priest of Jerusalem, so long as the existence of 
the smaller sanctuaries of Judah was not opposed 
in the interest of the temple at Jerusalem, exer- 
cised a certain supremacy over these, and made 
appointments to their staff of priests. It can 
scarcely be that we are to think of reception of 
the Elidae into priestly offices at Jerusalem, where 
the Zadokites would be very slow to suffer the in- 
trusion of strangers. 

Alongside of the head-priest Seraiah there is 
mention in 2 K 25" (Jer 52**) of Zephaniah as 
kohen mishneh (kohen ha-mishneh), lit. ' priest of 
the repetition,' i.e. probably representative of the 
bead-priest. The same title occurs in 2 K 23^, 
where, instead of the plural kohanS lui-mishneh, 
the singular is to be read with the Targum, since 
a plurality of 'priests of the second rank,' beside 
the high priest, who is here named, and the keepers 
of the threshold, would come in strangely ^N-hen 
there has been no mention of priests of the first 
rank (it is therefore not permissible, with Van 
Hoonacker, Sacerdoce, etc. p. 162, to find in the 
kohani ha-mishneh the Levites of the Priestly 
Writing). The Zephaniah in question appears in 
Jer 29^'- as principal overseer of the police arrange- 
ments in the temple. The keepers of the thresh- 
old {shomrS ha-saph) are also named in 2 K 25" 
(Jer 52*") along with the head-priest and the 
' second ' priest ; according to this passage the 
keepers or the threshold were three in number. 
Plainly we must think here of a fairly exalted 
priestly office, different from the humbler station 
uf tlie post-exilian doorkeepers (sho dnm), of whom 
there were a great many (2 Ch 34° confuses these 
^\ith the keepers of the tlireshold who are reckoned 
among the Levites). The keepers of the thresh- 
old already appear in the time of Joash (2 K 12"') 
as having to guard the entrance to the inner 
fore-court with the altar of burnt-offering. Ac- 
cording to this same passage as well as 2 K 22*, 
one of the duties of the keepers of the threshold was 
to collect the people's contributions to the temple. 
We must suppose that other priests or temple 
attendants were at their command in the discharge 
of their duties, which could scarcely have been 
overtaken by only three persons. Beyond all 
doubt we have in the keepers of the threshold to 
do with an actual pre-exihan priestly office, for it 
is an office which is unkno«-n in later times. 

According to 2 K 19' (Is 37"), the priestly body was 
arranged in groups as early as the time of Hezelciah, 
for here we read of ' elders of the priests,' who can 
be nothing else than chiefs of groups. 

In only a few passages, apart from Chronicles, 
where post-exilian relations are everywhere trans- 
ferred to earlier times, are LeWtes named during 
the monarchical period. In 1 S 6'° and 2 S 15^ 
they appear as bearers of the ark of Jaliweh, just 
as m the Priestly Writing and in Deuteronomy. 
The first of these passages, where tlie Levites 
make their appearance quite abruptly, is mani- 
festly interpolated. On the other hand, in tlie 
second passage the Levites, who are found here 
in the retinue of the priest Zadok, are not out of 
place ; but it must be confessed that the text of 
the whole passage is corrupt, and on this account 
doubt is here again cast upon the presence of the 

Levites. In Kings there is only a single mention 
of Levites, namely in 1 K S^'-. Here they are 
clearly thrust into the text by means cf a later 
interpolation (the close of v.* is found in the LXX 
only in A), for it is said first of all that priests 
took up the ark, the tent of meeting and its 
vessels, and only afterwards is the supplementary 
remark made that priests and Levites did this. 
AU the same, however, the term ' sons of Levi ' 
for those who were entitled to exercise the priestly 
office was knowTi to the author of ICings, Avho 
blames Jeroboam for making priests ' from among 
ail the people, which were not of the sons of Levi ' 
(1 K 1231). 

The existence of a class of sanctuaiy attendants, 
ditl'erent from the priests or subordinate to them, 
and who were called 'Levites,' cannot be proved 
for the monarchical period. But there are clear 
enough allusions, during this period, to temple 
attendants or slaves. According to Jos 9^, the 
Gibeonites, on account of the fraud they per- 
petrated upon the Israelites, were pronounced by 
Joshua accursed and degraded to be serfs, namely 
hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house 
of his God. This passage, from the mention of 
' the house of God (not ' tabernacle,' as in the 
Priestly Writing), is seen to be from the Jehovistio 
book (differently P in v.=', cf. v." [JE and P, 
with a Deuteronomic addition]). In this account 
of the institution of temple-slaves the writer of 
the Jehovistic book is thinking unquestionably of 
those that belonged to the Jerusalem temple as 
/tar' i^oxn" the house of God, and thus anticipates 
the temple and its set of attendants. Saul had 
not quite succeeded in exterminating the Gibeon- 
ites (2 S 2]}"); what survived of them belonged 
no doubt to the remnants of the Canaanites in 
the midst of Israel, of whom it is related that 
Solomon put them to forced service (1 K Q''"'-). 
Even in the post-exilic period there were still 
'servants of Solomon,' along ^^^th other temple- 
slaves, the Nethinim, i.e. 'those given' (Ezr 2'''^- 
aZ.). After the Exile we hear also of Nethinim, 
who are said to have been given by David and 
the princes 'for the service of the Levites,' i.e. 
for the temple (Ezr S^). 

Even the pre-exilic period would appear to have 
been acquainted with other grades, in addition to 
this lowest grade, of sanctuary attendants, who 
were also distinct from the priests proper. In the 
time of Nehemiah there was in the new com- 
munity a large body of temple-singers and door- 
keepers, ^^ho were then, or at a later period, 
considered to have returned from the Exile with 
Zerubbabel (Neh 7*"= Ezr 2"'-). It is difficult to 
suppose that these groups of sanctuary servants 
took their rise in the cultus-lacking period of the 
Exile, and equally so to believe that they were 
a new creation during the miserable beginnings 
of the restored religious service in the period be- 
tween the First Return and the advent of Nehe- 
miah. The post-exilic temple-singers and door- 
keepers are therefore, in all probability, descend- 
ants of those who had discharged tlie same offices 
in the pre-exilic temple (so also A. Kuenen, Hist.' 
krit. onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzame- 
linfr van de boektn des Ouden Verhunds, vol. iii. 
Leiden, 1865, p. 288 f.; and especially Koberle, 
whose assumptions, however, regarding the pre- 
exilic period go much farther). 

4. The Pkiesthood according to Deutero- 
nomy.— The relations of the cultus personnel at 
the close of the monarchical period are unquestion- 
ably portrayed in the Deuteronomic law, not lut 
that the atteiiii)t is made by the legislator to 
modify these relations upon the ground of the 
centralization of the cultus for which he contends. 
The Deuteronomic law in its primitive form, which 




has to be recovered from the present Bk. of Dt, 
is that book of the law which was found in tlie 
temple in the reign of Josi:ili, and which was the 
occasion of his reform of the cultus. The law- 
book proper is in any case contained in chs. 12-20. 
As a whole it cannot be raucli older than the date 
of its discovery, since its standpoint and its lan- 
jrnage both point to the time of Jeremiah. A 
ritual code proper it is not, rather are regulations 
about the cultus treated of only in so far as they 
touch the one demand of the legislator directly 
allecting the cultus, namely that for a sini'le 
sanctuary, or have a bearing upon the social rela- 
tions about which he is concerned. Even the 
demand for a single place of worship is not really 
made in the interest of the cultus, but rather in 
that of the form of the belief in God. In the 
rourse of his legislation, which is not directed 
specially from the point of view of 1,1 e Divine 
service, the author of the Deuteronomic ay is far 
from ^ving a complete picture of the jxisting 

fr.estiy relations, or of those to be established. 
n what he SJiys about them there are gaps which 
musi be tilled up from what we know from other 
sources. This cannot be done with complete 
certainty on all points. 

The priests are constantly referred to in Dt as 
'the Levite priests' (ha-ku/ulnim ha-Uwiyyhn, 
179. 18 jgi „; ) The legislator evidently has in 
view, in this expression, a special descent, for in 
21', in an older enactment, as it seems, borrowed 
by the author, there occurs the other expression, 
' the priests, tlie sons of Le\'i ' (so also 31"). The 
fl-anie inference follows from 18' ' the Levite priests, 
the whole tribe of Levi,' where the second desig- 
nation is probably in apposition with the first, in 
which case the author of the Deuteronomic law 
would not distinguish between ' Levite priests ' 
and 'Levites.' Since he recognizes only the one 
place chosen by Juliweh, namely Jerusalem, as a 
place of worship, it is only there tliat in his 
estimation real priests are to be found. Rut he 
knows of Levites who live scattered up and down 
in the land, and appears to be willing to concede 
to the whole of these, if they come to reside at 
Jerusalem, the same rights at its temple as the 
Levite priests who are settled there. Such at 
least is the simjdest way of understanding Dt IS""-: 
'And if a Levite come from any of thy gates out 
of all Israel, where he sojourncth, and come witli 
all tlic desire of his soul unto the place which 
Jaliweh shall choose, to minister there in the 
name of Jahweh his God like all his brethren, 
the Levites, who stand there before Jahweh, he 
shall eat the same portion [as they].' This last 
expression appears to refer to the {)ricst's right to 
the sacrilicial portions mentioned in v."- and to 
the re'shiik. Every Levite thus appears to ac(iuire 
priestly rights as soon as he takes up his abode 
at Jerusalem. It is true that 18' does not say 
that [the Levite] serves there ' like all his brethren 
the Levite priests,' but ' like all his brethren the 
Levites.' Hence the interpretation is not abso- 
lutely excluded that the jiassage means to say 
that everj' memljer of the tribe of Levi who comes 
to Jerusalem may discharge functions there, ac- 
cording to his special station, whether as priestly 
or as serving Levite, and that he is entitled to 
the payment corresponding to the particular ser- 
vice rendered (so van Hoonacker, Sncerdocc, etc. 
p. 174). This explanation, however, is not a prob- 
able one, because even in this passage there is not 
the slightest hint of any distinction amongst the 
Levites ; and the expressiim here use<l of the 
Levites at Jerusalem, ' stand before Jahweh,' ap- 
pears also outside Dt a.s the designation of tlie 
Bpecifically priestly service (Ezk 44''). 

Id Dt '21* it is prescribed that the ' priests, the 

sons of Levi,' are to a.ssist in the atoning ceremony 
for a murder that has been committed in the 
neighbourhood of a city of Israel ; those meant 
then are apparently priests from this particular 
city. In like manner in 24", where the treatment 
of lepiosy is entrusted in quite general terms to 
the Levite priests, the existence of priests outjside 
Jerusalem appears to be presupposed, for the 
Jenusalem priests could hardly have exercised the 
supervision in question for the whole country. 
Both these pas.sages, wliich .appear to be out of 
harmony with the Deuteronomic conception that 
there are priests only at Jerusalem, are probably 
borrowed from older laws which recognized a 
priesthood scattered up and down througliout the 

A distinction between priests and Levites is 
equally unknown to the expansions of the Deutero- 
nomic law. The parenetic introduction to Dt 
assumes that the tribe of Levi, after the destruc- 
tion of the golden calf (10', cf. 9""''), was chosen 
by Jahweh to bear the ark of the covenant, to 
stand before Jaliweh to serve Him, and to bless 
in His name (10*). This serving (shdrUh) and 
blessing are sjiecially priestly functions. The 
meaning of this jiassage might, indeed, be that 
these functions and the bearing of the ark 
(which, according to another conception, that of 
the Priests' Codex [see below, § 8 d], is not a 
specially priestly office) were dividetl amongst 
different branches of the tribe of Levi. But in 
the passage belonging to some redactor of the 
Deuteronomic law, 31", the ark is borne by ' the 
priests, the sons of Levi,' while in v." its bearers 
are the Lerites. The jireservation of the law is, 
according to 3r'""-, the business of the Levites; 
according to v.* (and 17'"), it is tlie business of 
the priests, the sons of Levi (the Levite priests). 
Everywhere here there appears to be no dillerence 
recognized between Levites and priests. In ch. 27, 
which is also a section belonging to a redactor of 
the Deuteronomic law, tlie same persons who in 
V.' are called Levite priests, appear to be called 
in v.'^ Levites (butcf., on this passage, Kautzsch, 
]). 288). Taking evei-ything into account, neitlier 
111 the Deuteronomic law nor in the additions to 
it is 'Levite' employed as the special designation 
for a class of teniiile-servants subordinate to the 
priests. The supposition is, indeed, not absolutely 
excluded that priests and temple-servants are botu 
included in the name ' Levites,' but even this is 
not likely. Rather would it appear that all 
through tlie Bk. of Deuteronomy we are to under- 
stand by Levites those oiilj- who are called to 
tlie priesthood proper. There can, indeed, be no 
doubt, after what we know from the Jeliovistic 
account in the Bk. of Joshua (see above, § 3) about 
temple-slaves, that the autlior of the Deuteronomic 
law and those who expounded his law were ac- 
quainted with lower grades of temple-servants, 
1 ut to all apjiearance they did not reckon these 
among the Levites. 

In the words of Dt 2fi' 'the priest who shall be 
in those days,' there appears to be an allusion to 
one special jiriest, a chief priest. In 17'', do the 
other hand, ' the priest ' may be taken rather as 
a typical designation for any priest (althou<'h it 
is against this interpretation that in v.' we nave 
the sin". ' the judge side by side with ' the licvite 
priests in the plural). Certainly in the redactory 
addition to the narrative introduction to Deutero- 
nomy, namely 10", a chief priest is taken for 
granted : ' Aaron died, and his son Eleazar became 
priest in his stead,' i.e. Elenzar then became ehicf 
prie-st, he was a priest already (Gc.irh. p. 88 f.). 

If no undoubted mention of a chief priest can 
bo found in the Deuteronomic law proper, still less 
docs it speak of the other priestly uignities wliicli. 




according to the Books of Kin^a (see above, § 3), 
already existed in tlie pre-exUic period. This 
shows the incompleteness of the Deuteronomic data 
regarding priestly relations. 

Ueuterononiy shows a distinct advance upon the 
older relations witnessed to in the Jehovistic book, 
in this, that no longer do we hear of lay priests. Itis 
plainly assumed in Dt that only Levite priests are 
entitled to otter sacrilice. The whole duty of the 
priests is summed up in the expression ' serve 
Jahweh' {s/idrcih Ja/iweh, I'" 21^ also shdreth 
absolutely, 18'-'), or in the equivalent expression, 
'stand before Jahweh' (18°-'). To this service 
belongs the pronouncing of the blessing upon the 
people (21° 10*). Besides their special functions in 
connexion with the cultus, the priests are entrusted 
with the supervision of leprosy (24*). Further, the 
priest has to gdve a hortatory addiress to the host 
of Israel before it moves out to battle (20-"). The 
ancient priestly task of giving judicial decisions 
still persists in Deuteronomy. To deal with dilii- 
cult lawsuits, a superior court is established at 
Jerusalem (17*^'). in which Levite priests have a 
seat along with a lay judge (shophct). By the body 
of judges mentioned in IQ'" as consisting of priests 
and a plurality of shophetim, we should probably 
understand the local court. According to the 
decision of ' the priests, the sons of Levi,' shall 
every controversy and every ofl'ence be judged, 
hence the priests have to take part in the atoning 
ceremony performed when a man has been mur- 
dered by an unknown hand (21°). Moreover, 
according to a passage, whose place as a con- 
stituent of the primitive Deuteronomy is not 
uncontested, ' the priests, the sons of Levi,' have to 
see to the preservation of the book of the law (17'*; 
cf. 31» and also v.=«). 

The tribe of Levi has, according to Dt, no in- 
heritance in the land ; Jahweh is their inheritance, 
i.e. the Levite priests are to live by their holy 
sei-vice (18"- id., also in the introduction 10°). 
Personal ownershiij of land on the part of a Levite 
is not therebj' excluded (18*). As he discharges 
his holy office, certain specified portions of the 
sarrifices and the dedicated gilts fall to the 
oliidating priest. He receives the shoulder, the 
cheek, and the maw of all ofi'erings in cattle and 
sheep (18^). The priest is to have the re'shith, 
the best, of com, must, oil, and (cf. 15'") wool of 
shceii (18^). According to 26""-, however, the 
whole of the re'ahith did not fall to the priest, at 
least not that of the fruit of trees (vv.---') ; on the 
contrary, a feast is to be made of this, which does 
not, however, exclude the sujjjiosition that a 
portion of this meal had to be given to the priest. 
In what relation this re'shith stands to the tenth, 
an<l whether the regulations about the re'shith 
belong to the original elements of the Deuteronomic 
law, is not quite clear (Nowack, p. 126); there is 
no mention of the olliciating priest having a share 
of the meals held with the tithes. 

(^iiite peculiar weight is laid by the author of 
the Hcuteronomic law on injunctions of kindness 
to the Levites. These manifestly cannot have in 
view the Levites who exorcise priestly functions at 
Jerusalem, for they had their fixed perquisites from 
the olterings, and did not req^uire kindness. Katlier 
has the lawgiver in his nund the Levites of the 
country who did not discharge holy services, and 
he refers to them clearly in the expression, ' the 
Levite that is within thy gates ' (12'-- '* al.). It is 
expressly enjoined that the Levites, along with 
other needv persons, are to be invited to the meals 
held with' the tithes (U-'-s*), to the sacrificial 
meals (12"- "'• 26"), especially to the joyous cele- 
bration of the festivals (16"' "), and that the third 
year's tithe is to be given to them and to other 
needy ones (26'*). One is not, as it is expressed in 

these enactments, to 'forsake' the Levil? (12** 
14-'), who is thus in need of religious charity. 
It is not clear at the outset what kind of Levitea 
outside Jerusalem the author of the Deuteronomic 
law has in view in the above injunctions. It is 
generally supposed that he refers to the country 
Levites in general, in so far as these, owing to tlie 
centralization of the cultus demanded by the 
Deuteronomic law, would be deprived of theii 
former income derived from the numerous places 
of worship in the country, the bdmCth. But it is 
not at all likely that the author of the Deuteronomic 
law should confess to so special an interest in the 
priests of the bdin6th service which he prohibits, 
anti which was largely mingled with idolatrj'. 
Moreover, he evidently conceives of the Levites, 
who are commended to charitable support, as 
already in destitution ; it is not as of the future 
but as of something ])rescnt that he speaks, when 
he refers to the Levite 'who is within thy gates.' 
Probablj' he is thinking of those Levites who had 
not taken part in the service on the high places, 
and yet, as not belonging to the Jerusalem priest- 
hood, were excluded from officiating in the cultus 
of the temple. He may also have had this class 
specially in view in speaking of the Levites to 
whom he desires to open the entrance to the cultus 
at Jerusalem whenever they take up their abode 
there. That there were such Levites in the time 
of Josiah is not to be doubted. The priestly family 
to which Jeremiah belonged lived at Anathoth, 
probably traced its origin to the Elidje (see above, 
§ 3), and can hardly be supposed to have been 
admitted by the Zadokite priests at Jerusalem to a 
share in the temple service. On the other hand, it 
is not conceivable, at least in the case of Jeremiai 
himself, that he took part in the bdmvth service, 
and thus his priestly desoent brought him no income. 
Other Levites, too, may have found themselves in 
the same situation. 

The attitude of the author of the Deuteronomic 
law to the non-.ferusalemite Levites is of 
importance for the forming of ii judgment on his 
legislation and its origin. It is accordingly, in 
the opinion of the present writer, improbable 
that the author of the Deuteronomic law belonged, 
as is mostly held at present, to the Jerusalemite 
priesthood, and it is further extremely probable 
that although, like the proidiets long before him, 
he stands up for Jerusalem as the legitimate place 
of worship, the cultus forms he describes are not 
specifically Jerusalemite. To this may be ascribed 
many of the differences between the Deuteronomio 
prescriptions and those of other codes in the Penta- 
teuch. In any case the author of the Deutero- 
nomic law, in view of the many points of contact 
between Jeremiah and tlie laws in Dt, must have 
stood near to the circle in which Jeremiah moved, 
that is to say, at once the prophetical and the non- 
Jenisalemite Levitical circle. The circumstance 
that it was Hilkiah, the chief priest imder Josiah, 
who caused the ' book of the law ' {i.e. Deutero- 
nomj'), which he found in the temple during the 
execution of some repairs, to be submitted to the 
king (2 K 22^"-), is no evidence that this book was 
the genuine expression of the then aims of the 
Jerusalemite priesthood. We have no reason to 
doubt that Hilkiah bond fide regarded the book 
which he had found, and whose origin he need not 
have known, as the ancient book of the law, and 
gave weight to it as such, without regard to the ccn- 
venicnce or inconvenience of its contents. Besides, 
we may suppose that the requirement of the cen- 
tralization of the cultus, which underlies the whole 
of Dt, was so extremely welcome to the Jerusalemite 
chief priest that it would go less against the grain 
for him to take into the bargain other reciuirements 
which did not exactly serve the special interests of 




Hie .lerusalemite priesthood. Further, we have no 
reason to think of Hilkiah as prejudiced in favour 
of this special interest. 

5. The Priesthood from Josiah's REFOiiM to 
THK Exile. — The requirements of Dt on lielialf of 
the Leviles were not carried out to their full extent 
in Josiah'.s reform. Even from this circumstance it 
may be inferred that Hilkiah, under whose guid- 
ance probably the reform was conducted, is not to 
be credited with the formulating of the Deutero- 
noniic legislation. A consistent carrying out of 
tlie letter of the Deuteronomic jjrescrijitions would 
liave re(|uired that, after the abolition h}' Josiah (jf 
all places of worship except the temple at Jeru- 
salem, all non-Jerusalemite Levites who desired 
it should be equally admitted to the cultus at 
Jerusalem ; for Dt sets up no distinction amongst 
the Levites outside Jerusalem, between those w-lio 
are entitled to this and those who are not. Not- 
withstanding, iu so far as the narrative in Kings 
is correct, and in this instance its correctness 
hardly admits of doubt, nothing like a general 
admi.ssion of Levites took place. Hilkiah, if lie 
was the moving agent in tornmlating Dt, must 
thus either have failed to carry out thoroughly his 
own aims, or he did not iu the Deuteronomic jiio- 
gianinie give correct expression to these aims. 
Little probability attaches to either of these 

According to the narrative of Kings (2 K S."?), 
Josiah, in liis purification of the cultus bj' the 
suppression of the hdmOth worship, aii])ears to have 
di.stmguislied between three categories of priests 
outside Jerusalem. The kemarim he deposed (v.°). 
Hy these are meant, in accordance >vith the uniform 
or use of this word (see above, § 1), and in view of 
tbf Aay in which the kimartm are introduced in 
connexion with the.suppres.sion of the IJaal worship 
which found expressiun in the adoration of sun, 
moon, and stars — idolatrous priests. The koIWuiiin 
from the cities of Judah were assembled by the 
king (v.*), but he did not permit the priests of the 
high places to ascend the altar of Jahweh at Jeru- 
salem, but allowed them to ' eat mnrzCth in the 
midst of their brethren ' (v."). By tliis is perhaps 
meant that they had to remain in their respective 
places and there find their bread. In this sense 
the expression would certainly be somewhat 
strange, and there would be no indication then 
that these bCtmith priests were treated with any 
less severity than the kemarim, although it must 
be assumed that they were. We must therefore 
suppose that the expression ' eating of mazzCth ' 
has reference to some favour shown them in the 
matter of maintenance (Gesrh. p. 225 f.). Of a 
third class of non-Jeru.salemite priests there is not 
express mention ; but since it is said that the 
koluXnim (in a body) were assembled at Jerusalem, 
and then the special treatment of the kulUlniiii of the 
high places is indicated, the assembling can hardly 
have had any object except to seiiarate these 
hi'imuth priests fioiii other non-Jerusalemite priests 
wild had not been priests of the high places. Kuenen 
(ThT, xxiv. [ISiJii] II. 27) objects, indeed, to this 
explanation, with apparent right, when he says 
that then the order of words in 2 K 1'X' would 
re<|uire to be ^nkh kohdni hn-bfimCt/t 16' ya'dUi. 
Hut the contrast is between ' ho bromj/it to Jeru- 
salem ' (v.") and ' the priests of the high jilaeos 
iri:vl not up,' so that the order of words ('«/./( lo' 
yiidlii) can be justilied also on our view. Those 
non-Jeru.salemite priests who had not been |iriests 
of the high places were then probably admitteil by 
Josiah, in accordance with the directions of Dt 
regarding the Levites, to a share in the cultus at 
Jerusalem. If this was done, the rei|uireMients of 
Dt were satisfied in the spirit, although certainly 
not to the extent of what, taken in the letter, they 

might exjiress. On the other hand, if by the priests 
of the high places (v.») who were excluded by 
Josiah from the sen-ice of the altar, we are to 
understand all non-Jerusaleiiiito Levites, it must 
be held that the Deuteronomic demands in favour 
of the admi.ssion of the non-Jerusalemite Levites 
had no regard paid to them at all. Considering 
the impression which the law made upon Josiah, 
this is not exactly probable, for Dt demands in no 
ambiguous terms that the non-Jerusalemite Levites 
should be admitted to some share in the holy ser- 
vice. It is possible, no doubt, that in tlie narrative 
of Kings the admission of non-Jerusalemite Levites 
to the cultus is passed over in silence, not without 
intention, because it might ajipear objectionable to 
the author. In the cities ot the old kingdom of 
Samaria, which were likewise purilied of the 
bdmoth, Josiah, according to the narrative of 
Ivings, offered all the bCunuth priests upon the 
altars (v.-"). AVhether this bloody measure 
literally carried out may indeed be doubted. On 
other jioints the story of the reform of the cultus 
makes the impression of being ba.sed upon good 
authority. For in.stance, in the mention of the 
eating of mazzvtli (or whatever may have been the 
original expression in what is perhaps now a 
corrupt text) by the former priests or the high 
places in the midst of their brethren, the author 
must have had in view a special arrangement no 
longer clearly intelligible to us, which cannot have 
been invented by him after the analogy of certain 
relations in which the priests fouiul themselves at 
a later period, or w hicli were known from other 

The Bk. of Jeremiah calls the prophet's rela- 
tives at Anathoth kuhdnim (!') ; they would have 
been called in Dt Levites. IJesides this, in a 
passage which it is difficult to assign to Jeremiah 
himself, the Deuteronomic expression ' Levite 
priests ' is emplo3'ed (33'*), and in the same place 
there is mention of ' the Levites, the priests, my 
(nc. Jahweh's) ministers' (v.-'), or, more brielly. 'the 
Levites that minister to me ' (v.--). The lik. of 
Jeremiah bears no witness to the existence of a 
class of Levites distinct from the priests. But it 
certainly witnesses to an organization of the 
priestly body. There is mention of elders of the 
priests (19'), the office of chief su]ierinteiident in 
the temiilc (20' 29-»'-), as well as that of keeper of 
the threshold ('A5*). The priests, even the higher 
grades of them, appear to be still regarded as 
court officials ; at least the chief superintendent 
Zephaniali (20'-^'- '-'") makes his ajjpearance as a 
messenger of king Zedekiah /21' 37^). 

6. Till': Prie.sthooi) in Ezekikl's State of 
THK Future. — During the Exile, the prophet 
Ezekiel, the son of Buzi, of priestly descent (Ezk 
P), drew up a set of statutes for the future tlieo- 
cracy. These statutes are thoroughly imbued 
with a priestly spirit, and in view of the com- 
manding position which is assij,'ned in them to the 
sons of Zadok, the Jeiusalemite priestly family, 
there can be no doubt that Ezekiel himself belonged 
to this family. 

In the State of the futuje, in what shall then be 
the sole existing temple, that at Jerusalem, he 
permits (44""-) none but the Levite priests (cf. 43'"), 
the sons of Zadok, to enjoy priestly rij^'hts, to oiler 
to Jahweh fat and Mood, to enter His sanctuary 
and to approach His table; this prerogative is to 
belong to them because they kept the charge of 
the sanctuary of Jahweh when the children of 
Israel went astray. The prophet's meaning clearly 
is, that the Zadolcites kept the service of Jahweli 
pure wlien the people deviated into idolatry — a 
statement which, of course, has only a measure of 
truth, fur the intrusion of idolatry into the temiilo 
I at Jerusalem in the reign of Slana-sseh cannot 




liave tukcn jilace without some coin]ilicity on the 
part 01 till.' Jeinsalciiiite priests. The Zadokites 
are eontrasted liy lOzekiel with the Levites wlio 
went astray from Jahvvoh when Israel apostatizeil, 
who left the service of Jahweli for that of idols. 
They are to bear their iniquity, they shall not 
ajiproaeh Jahweh to exercise the office of priest to 
Him, nor a])proach His holy things ; on the con- 
trar_y, they are to take the place of the foreigners 
who have hitherto been allowed to enter the 
sanctuary as keejers of it, and in their room they 
are to keep watch at the doors of the temple, to 
be ministers of the house, to slay the bumt- 
ofifering and the sacrilice of the people, and to 
stand before them (the Israelites) to minister to 
them (44°'^). Besides slaughtering the victims, 
the ' ministers of the house,' i.e. the non-Zadokite 
Levites, have, further, to cook the sacrLtices of the 
people (4G-''). 

It is plain that by the non-Zadokite Levites, 
Ezekiel means the former priests of the high 
places, who had abetted the people's practice of 
idolatry on the high places. For this they are to 
be deprived of their former priestly rank and 
degraded to the position of temple - servants. 
From this it may be seen that Josiah's reform 
had not been able to destroy the former bdmuth 
priests' claim to priestlj' rights. They could, in 
face of that reform, appeal to the enactment of 
Dt, whereby an equal share in the priestly service 
at Jerusalem was open to all Levites who might 
come to attach themselves to the cultus there. 

The explanation of Ezekiel's ' Levites ' as the 
former priests of the high places has been rightly 
mainta,ined, especially by Graf, Kuenen, and SVell- 
hausen. On the other hand, one cannot infer, as 
has been done by the writers just named, from 
Ezekiel's presentation of the case, that up till then 
there were in the temple at Jerusalem no other 
servants of the priests or of the temple beyond the 
foreigners spoken of. Ezekiel demands merely 
that the foreigners who had preriously given ser- 
vice in the sanctuary, and who are known from 
the Jehovistic passages in the Bk. of Joshua (see 
above, § 3) as temple-slaves, should have their 
place taken in future by the former priests of the 
high places. But besides such servants, there 
may, even prior to the time of Ezekiel, have been 
Israelites, possibly even Levites in particular, who 
held in tlie temple a position subordinate to the 
priests and intermediate between them and the 
laity. Ezekiel speaks of a degradation not of the 
Levites as a body, but only of those of them who 
had been priests of the idol-worship. Only in a 
later passage (48") does he say of the 'Levites' 
generally, in distinction from the sons of Zadok, 
that they ' went astray,' but, after the previous 
description of the manner of this going astray, it 
may be so put for the sake of shortness. "That 
besides those who went astray and the Zadokites 
there is yet another group of Levites recognized by 
Ezekiel, namely those who had even at an earlier 
period occupiea the position now assi^ed to the 
former baniCth priests, of this there is certainly 
nowhere a clear expression. One might think 
to deduce it from 40''"-, where — before the de- 

frading of the idolatrous Levites is spoken of — a 
istinction is made between ' the priests, the 
keepers of the charge of the house, and ' the 
priests, the keepers of the charge of the altar, 
which are the sons of Zadok, who from among the 
sons of Levi draw near to Jahweh to minister to 
him ' (Gesrh. p. 106). Smend (ad loc.) and Kuenen 
',ThT, 1890, p. 23) would refer the words 'these 
are the sons of Zadok' to both the preceding 
definitions of the kohdntm, go that by ' keepers 
of the charge of the house ' we should not have to 
understand Levitts as distinguished from Zadok- 

ites. This docs not appear to the present writei 
to be permissible, seeing that in 44" it is expressly 
said of the Levites that they are to be ' ministers 
01 the house,' and in 44''' that it is they that are to 
be ' keepers of the charge of the house ' (cf. 46-^), 
whereas 44'^ says of the eons of Zadok that thev 
are to draw near to the table of Jahweh, whiiK 
corresponds to the definition ' to keep the char_''e 
of the altar.' Kuenen appears to be decidedly 
wrong when, in answer to the present writer's 
distinguishing of two classes of priests in 40"'-, 
he objects that the south hall and the north hall 
in 40''^'-, of which the first is for the keepers of the 
charge of the house, and the second for the keepers 
of the charge of the altar, are, according to 42", 
both intended for the priests proper, ' who draw 
near to Jahweh,' i.e. the Zadokites. The south 
hall and the north hall of 40"'- are quite difl'erent 
from the north halls and south halls of 42" (ob- 
serve hall* to the north and lialls to the south,' 
both times in the plural). The two single halls of 
40''"- lie outside the inner gate, i.e. the south gate 
and the north gate leading to the inner fore-court, 
by the side of the gate (v."). The north halls and 
south halls of 42" are situated opposite the inner 
fore-court, i.e. outside the latter, on its north and 
south sides (see Smend, ad loc). From 42" it 
cannot then be inferred that the kohuntm men- 
tioned in 40^"- are all to be regarded as Zadokites 
But even if in this passage a distinction is already 
made between priests of first and second rank, it 
is possible that there is in this a proleptic reference 
to the later statements about the degrading of the 
priests of the high places. If so, it is certainly 
surprising that only in 40'" are even the lower 
class spoken of as kohanim. The two classes are 
elsewhere distinguished by Ezekiel in the same 
fashion, but the designation kohanim for the lower 
class occurs no more after the rule has been laid 
down in ch. 44 that the Levites who went astray 
are no longer to discharge priestly services. Un 
the contrary, 45"- speaks of ' the priests, the 
ministers of the sanctuarj', who draw near to 
minister to Jahweh,' and, along with these, of 
' the Levites, the ministers of the house.' There- 
fore it seems to follow from the peculiar form of 
designation, kohdnim, apjilied only in 40'"- to the 
lower class, that the distinction of kohilntm of two 
grades was familiar to Ezekiel from already exist- 
ing relations (so Van Hoonacker, Sacerdoce, etc. 
p. 195), but that in his later utterances he pur- 
posely avoided giving to the lower class the name 
of ' priests,' after he had denied the priestly char- 
acter to the apostate Levites who were a-ssigned to 
this class. That there should have been a second 
class of priests even prior to the Exile is not 
astonishing in view of the various priestly dig- 
nities recognized in the Bks. of Kin^s (see above, 
§ 3). If this were really the case, the priests of 
secondary rank will, of course, have been dillercnt 
from the foreigners, the temple-slaves. The latter 
are required by Ezekiel to be in future wholly dis- 
carded. His Levites, i.e. the former priests of the 
high places, are, on this presupposition, to dis- 
charge in the future cultus the duties which 
hitherto have been discharged by the priests of the 
second rank and the foreigners. 

A chief i)riest is not known to the future theo- 
cracy of Ezekiel any more than a king, but only a 
' prince' (nasi'), to whom certain priestly prerofra- 
tives belong, as they had done to the pre-exilic 
king. The prince may upon certain occasions 
enter the east gate of the inner fore-court, but 
not this court it.self ; he is to defray the cost of 
the daily offering and the material for the offer- 
ings at the great festivals, and for the people 
(Oesck. p. 129f.). 'The priest' who officiates at 
the atonement for the sanctuary on the first day 



of the first and seventh months (45'"') can hardly 
be the chief priest (Smend, ad loc), but may 
rather be regarded as tlie particular Zadokite who 
happens to officiate. It has frequently been 
assumed that these ordinances of Lzekiel imply 
the nonexistence of a ' high priest ' up to iiis 
time. It may be, indeed, that prior to Ezekiel no 
priest bore the exact title ' high priest ' ; but there 
can be no doubt, from the account of things in the 
Bks. of Kings, that prior even to the E.xile there 
was a fhi:/ priest at Jerusalem. In Ezekiel's 
theocracy Jaliweh is directly present, hence it has 
no room for a huni;ui king, and is just as little 
in want of a single priestly mediator (this also 
against Van Hoonacker, Saccrdoce, etc. p. 308, 
^vllo holds that Ezekiel intends, by the emphasis 
he lays on Zadok as the father of the Jeruaalemite 
priesthood, to recognize in his State of *ie future 
a ' higli priest ' such as Zadok was). Kzekiel's 
temple has no sacred ark, to which sucn a priest 
had to draw near, but God Himself dwells in the 
tenijile. It may be that in the words, ' Away with 
the tiara {miznejiheth, elsewhere only as the desig- 
nation of the high priest's turban in the Priests' 
Code, cf. ziinipk in Zee 3°), hence with the crown' 
(Ezk 21" [Eng.-*]), there is a distinct rejection 
both of the kingship and of the high priesthood 
expressed [Gesrh. p. 118 f. ). At all events, in view 
of the droi)])ing ot the title of ' king' in Ezekiel's 
theocracy, it would not be surprising if he meant 
a hitherto existing high priesthood to be also dis- 

Ezekiel gives special injunctions to the priests. 
They are to perform the lioly service, clothed in 
linen, not in wool, in order to avoid sweat (44"'). 
This official dress they are to put otl' when they go 
or.t to the outer court, that they may not sanctity 
the people with their holy garments (v."). In like 
manner, in order to avoid sanctifying the people, 
it is enacted that the priests are to boil the guilt- 
oti'ering and tlie sin-oiVering and to bake the minhdh 
in chambers of the inner court, but not to bring 
them into the outer court (46""). Their hair they 
are neither to let grow long nor to shave off, but 
to cut; when they go into the inner court they 
may not drink wine (44™'-). They may not marry 
a divorced woman, but only a virgin of the 
of Israel or the widow of a priest (v.*-). They are 
not to defiie themselves with dead bodies except in 
the case of the nearest relations ; in the event of 
such defilement the priest is not to be allowed to 
enter the inner court and present his sin-offering 
till the seventh day after his purification (v.^"'). 
An injunction, which was indeed of general 
application (cf. Ex 22-''°), is addressed with special 
emphasis to the priests, namely that they are not 
to eat of animals that have died of themselves or 
been torn (v."). Amongst the functions assimed 
to the priests, besides the oil'ering of sacrifice, there 
is the instruction of the people in the difference 
between holy and iirofano, clean and unclean, as 
well as the givin" of judicial decisions (v.'-'"-). 

The principle alreadj' laid down in Dt, and re- 
peated by Ezekiel, that the priests are to have 
no inheritance in the land of Israel, that Jahwch 
is their inheritance (44-*), is not carried through 
consistently by Ezekiel. He assigns to the priests 
the land immediately surrounding the temple, as a 
holy tiriimdh or ' portion ' to dwell on (4,')"'- 48'"''-) ; 
the Levites receive the district toucliing on the 
priests' land (45° 48"). The land of the priests 
and Levites is an inalienable possession (48"). Be- 
sides this the priests have, as in Dt, but after a 
dilVerent arrangement, definite portions assigned 
them of the sacrifices and sacred gifts. The iiiin- 
fydh, the sinolVering and the guilt-oflering they 
have to consume in the chamliers of Mie teiiiple 
(42" 44*"). Every ' devoted thing' in Israel falls 

to them (44^), and, in the case of the consecrated 
gifts, the best (the rc'shith) of all tlie first-fruits 
of everything, and of every heave-otlering (tiru- 
mdh), of everything of all heave-oll'erings, along 
with which special mention is made, further, oi 
tlie best (the rc'shith.) of the dough (44»"). By 
the lieaveoff'erin'' appears to be meant vegetable 
proiluots of the land, along with the first-fruits 
already mentioned. Of the heave-ofVering also 
only the re'skUh is a.ssigned to the priest. What 
is to be done with the rest is not indicated, per- 
ha]is it goes to the State (Gesch. p. 126 f.). 

7. The Priesthood from Ezekiel to Ezra. 
— Ezekiel's ordinances were of an ideal character, 
calculated upon a hoped - for restoration of the 
theocracy. During the Exile, when there was no 
holy service performed, we learn nothing about 
the condition of the priestly arrangements. Only 
Deutero-Isaiali speaks of ' holy princes ' (43^), by 
which probably priest-princes are meant, and in 
that case a priestliood organized in different grades 
is jiresupposed, such as we make acquaintance with 
in Kings. A propliet \vriting in the period after 
the Ketum, wlio appears to have belonged to the 
school of Deutero-Lsaiah, but can scarcely have 
been identical with him, rises to the broail-minded 
expectation that Jahweh in the future will take to 
Himself even Gentiles ' for priests, for Levites ' (Is 
Gt)-', where read D'l'?^ D':nj) ; see Gesch. p. 249 f. ). 
Whether the prophet understands the terms 
' priests ' and ' Levites ' to be identical in mean- 
ing, or distinguishes between tliem (so, recently, 
again. Van Hoonacker, Snccrdoce, etc. p. 206 fi'.), 
is not perfectly clear ; but the probabUity is that 
the two terms are regarded as equivalent, as other- 
wise there would be an anti-climax in the order 
' priests, Levites.' The statement assumes the 
simplest character if one emends (with Kuenen, 
Duhm [ad loc.}, Kittel [adloc.'}, and Cheyne [Introd. 
to the Book of Isaiah, London, 1895, p. 377]) O'm'i) 
C'.i^' for Levite priests.' 

From the post-exilic community we have authen- 
tic information about the condition of the priest- 
hood, first of all from Haggai and Zecliariah in 
the second jear of king Darius (Hystaspis), B.C. 
520. Both these prophets speak of Josliua, the 
head of the priestly body, as ' high priest ' {ha- 
kOhen ha-aadvl. Hag !'• '". », Zee V-" al.), a designa- 
tion of which we have found hitherto only isolated 
occurrences in Kings, without having any guarantee 
from these that we are entitled to look upon it as 
a pre-exilic title. When, in the vision of Zeihariah, 
the Satan accuses the high priest, his comjilaint is 
repelled by tlie angel of Jaliweh, in the name of 
Jahweh ' wlio has tliosen Jerusalem ' (Zee 3-'). The 
high priest then is clearly viewed as the represen- 
tative of Jerusalem, and thus, in all probability, 
of the whole community. Without the liigh priest, 
Zechariah cannot portray the consummation of all 
things under the Zemah, i.e. the Messiah. He 
thinks of a priest as standing on the right (LXX) 
of the future king (G"). In another passage in 
this same prophet, the Messiah himself appears to 
be rei>resente<l as in possession of priestly preroga- 
tives, when it is said of Joshua and his companions, 
i.e. tlie rest of the priests, that they are ' men ot 
the sign,' in allusion to the coming of i\\c /.cmoh, 
under whom tlie sin of the land is to be taken away 
in one day (:!"'■). To Joshua the promise is made 
that, if he will walk in Jahweh's ways and kee]i His 
charge, he sliall judge Jahweh's house (i.e. Israel ; 
tudin wouKl scarcely be used of the management 
of the temple [Wellliausen, Nowack], although the 
tenijile ajipears to suit better the mention of 
'courts' in the same context), keep His court«, 
and have a place to walk among those who stand 
befiire ( lod (:t'). Joshua is thus thought of aa 
the culminating head of the people, the directs' 




of the cultus, the mediator between the community 
and God. The high priest is manifestly conceived 
of by Zechariah as anointed (as in the Priests' 
Code), for the 'two sons of oil' of Zee 4''' can 
hardly stand for anything else than the Davidic- 
ally descended Zerubbabel and tlie high priest 

All this marks a view of the dignity of the chief 
priest which is diametrically opposed to the pro- 
gramme of Ezekicl, and which cannot be under- 
stood as a direct expansion of what we have learned 
from Dt or the prophets or the historical books to 
have been the ilevelopment of thint;s hitherto. Of 
course, through the restoration of Israel, after the 
Exile, the dignity of the chief priest acquired extra 
elevation, because he was now head of the com- 
munity with no longer a king by his side. But in 
spite of all this it appears to the present writer 
inconceivable, that in the course of the 52 years 
which had elapsed since Ezekiel in the five and 
twentieth year of his captivity (B.C. 572) had his 
vision of tne new Jerusalem with its new ordin- 
ances (40'), the high priestly dignity should have 
made its appearance as a wholly new creation. If 
Ezekiel is silent about a chief priest, this is— as the 
statements in the Bks. of Kmgs show — plainly 
not because there had been no chief priest at 
Jerusalem up till then, but is due to an intentional 
reaction against a then actually existing otBce. 
But even if this be so, the rank of tlie chief priest 
must, in the interval between Dt and Zechariah, 
or even between Ezekiel and Zechariah, have been 
raised in a way of which there is no evidence in the 
sources as yet adduced, and which is not intelligible 
on the ground simply of the changed circumstances. 
We shall have to return later on to inquire to what 
influence this alteration is to be ascribed (see below, 
§ 8 g). 

In Haggai the priests are asked for tdrah, i.e. 
oral direction, and this with reference to the dis- 
tinction of clean and unclean (2""). From the fact 
that the reply is given by word of mouth, it does 
not follow that there was as yet no written t6rah 
at all on this subject ; even where such exists, oral 
direction as to its application in any particular case 
is still requisite. By Zechariah, too, it is regarded 
as the business of tlie priests— as well as the pro- 
phets — to give information about a question aflect- 
ing religious observances (7'). 

Neitlier Haggai nor Zechariah make any mention 
of Levites alongside of priests. Our first authentic 
witness to Levites is in the time of Ezra. Accord- 
ing to the account given in Ezra's own Memoirs 
(indicated hereafter by M, which stands also for 
the Memoirs of Nehemiah), Ezra was accompanied 
to Palestine by two priestly houses, that of Gersliom 
of the sons of Phinelias, and that of Daniel of the 
sons of Ithamar (Ezr 8^ M). No Levites came for- 
ward at first to join him (v." M). It was only at 
■Ezra's special request that 38 Levites were at 
length prepareQ lo go with him (v.'"- M). Of the 
Nethinim, ' whom David and the princes had given 
for the service of the Levites,' there went with 
Ezra 220 men (v.^" M). The fact that so few 
Levites, and these only after much pressing, con- 
sented to follow Ezra, must have been due to 
special circumstances. The Levites, who in Ezr 
and Neh are everywhere sliari)ly distinguished from 
the priests, must be understood to be those whom 
Ezekiel had called Levites in the narrower sense, 
i.e. the descendants of the non-Jerusalemite priests 
of the high places. The station which Ezokiel had 
assigned to them in the State of the future must 
have presented few attractions. Still tlie distinc- 
tion between priests and Levites among those who 
returned with Ezra can scarcely be based merely 
upon the ordinance proposed by Ezekiel, but, like 
the appearance of the high priest in Zechariah, is 

probably to be attributed to the influence of anothei 
classification which had nieauwhUe come into force 
(cf. below, § 8 g). But even apart from such, and 
even if there was no thought of introducing the 
ideal constitution of Ezekiel, the situation was 
not a favourable one for these ' Levites.' As Ezra 
himself, according to what is quite a credible 
account of his descent (Ezr 7"-), was a Zadokite, 
the descendants of the former priests of Jeru- 
salem would, as a matter of course, take the 
lead amongst the returned exiles, so that other 
' Levites,' who were not in a position to claim 
that they belonged to the priestly aristocracy, must 
gi\e way to them. 

The Memoirs of both Ezra and Nehemiah make 
a distinction, which the Bks. of Ezr and Neh do 
not make everywhere throughout, between the 
Levites and the singers and doorlteepers of the 
temple (e.g. Ezr 10^'- M ; see Gesch. p. 142, and 
cf. below, § 9). These are classes which meet ua 
for the first time in the post-exilic period (the 
'singers' of Ezk 40-" are based upon a textual 
error, see Sniend, ad he; otherwise Kijl erie, p. 
17 tt'.). But it is not likely that these classes 
constitute a really new phenomenon, which first 
took its rise in the Exile, for, during a period when 
there was neither temple nor cultus, professional 
classes like these can scarcely liave been formed. 
And as little — even if the representation given 
in Neh 7 (?M) = Ezr 2, that already amongst those 
who returned with Zerubljabel there were singers 
and doorkeepers, should be incorrect— can these 
classes have come into being for the first time 
under the wretched conditions that marked the 
beginnings of the cultus in post-exilic Jerusalem. 
Ratiier, it may be inferred, in the post-exiho 
singers and doorkeepers we liave to do with the 
descendants of doorkeepers and singers of the pre- 
exilic temple, just as in the Nethinim with 
descendants of pre-exilic temple-slaves. The post- 
exilic singers, doorkeepers, and Nethinim are con- 
sequently an argument in favour of the existence 
of a numerous non-priestly personnel of servants 
in the pre-exilic temple. 

In a statistical account of the Astarte temple, 
inscribed on stone, found on the site of the ancient 
Kition, and belonging perhaps to the 4th cent. B.C. 
(CIS, I. 86a and c), there is mention of a whole 
series of difi'erent servants of the temple, who 
correspond in part to the Jerusalem temple- 
servants : those who had charge of the curtains, 
gatekeepers, those who had to attend to the 
slaying of the sacrificial victims, female singers 
or dancers (ns'^y). A personnel of a similar kind 
was, in fact, required by every considerable 

The post-exilic Levites m the narrower sense, 
on the other hand, cannot be identified with any 
ofiice in the pre-exilic temple. Although the class 
known in post-exilic times as ' Levites ' owed it.s 
origin, to all appearance, to the programme of 
Ezekiel, yet the presence of special doorkeepers, 
alongside the Levites, in the post-exilic temple, 
shows that the Levites had not bec^ome precisely 
what he intended, for he had assigned to them 
the charge of the temple doors (see above, § 6). 
From the same circumstance it may be inferred 
with probability that the class of doorkeepers 
existed prior to Ezekicl, and that he intended 
to amalgamate his Levites with these. If the 
list contained in Neh 7 is what in the present text 
it gives itself out to bo, namely a catalogue of 
those who at the first returned from the Exile 
with Zerubbabel (Neh 7'), the first guliih that 
returned already included all the above classes 
of sanctuary servants. Along with 4289 i>ricsts 
the list mentions 74 Levites, 148 (128) smgers, 
138 (139) doorkeepers, 392 Nethinim and sons of 




Solomon's servants (Neh V*"-, cf. Ezr S^'-). But 
perhaps the jirobability is greater that we have 
to do here with a list of the population of Judah 
at the time of Neheraiah. The very small number 
of Levites will liave to be explained in this passage 
in the same way as in the notice regarding those 
that returned ^^-ith Ezra (see above). Another 
list (Xeh 11'"""), which likewise has reference per- 
haps to the time of Nehemiah (the Chronicler, at 
all events, understands it so), gives, amongst the 
numbers of those dwelling in Jerusalem, for the 
priests 1 192 ; for the Levites, to whom the singers 
are here reckoned, 284 ; for the doorkeepers 172. 
This list, liowever, as it does not distinguish be- 
tween Levites and singers, may not have been 
drawn up till after the time of Nehemiah. Ezra 
himself says nothing of singers and doorkeepers 
lia\-ing returned with him ; it is only in the later 
narrative, Ezr 7', that they are mentioned, but 
^^•ithout any statement of their numbers, amongst 
the different classes of those who accompanied 
Ezra. It may be that they had already returned 
in such numbers, that, when Ezra set out, there 
were either no more singers and doorkeepers in 
Babylon at all (Vogelstein, p. 38 f.), or none that 
were prepared to go with him. On the otlier 
hand, 220 Nethinim returned with Ezra (Ezr 8=» 

The same list in Neh 7, whose date is uncertain, 
lays great stress on the priests being able to prove 
their priestly genealogy ; the families that could 
not do this were excluded from the priesthood 
(v.""'). What was demanded in the matter of 
this genealogy is not evident from the expressions 
used, whether perchance descent from Zadok had 
to be proved, in accordance with the ordinance of 
Ezekiel, or from Aaron, as is required by the 
Priests' Code. 

The above were the constituent elements of the 
service of the temple, when, according to the 
usually accepted date, in B.C. 445 or 444, during 
the governorship of Nehemiah, Ezra caused the 
Law to be read aloud in solemn assembly (Neh 
8ff.). This law — probably the whole Pentateuch, 
otherivise only the so-called Priests' Code, i.e. the 
ceremonial law contained in the middle books of 
the Pentateuch — contained also regulations re- 
garding the priesthood which up till then had not 
possessed normative force, at whatever time tliey 
may have ori";inated. In the position, however, 
answering to tliat in the Priests Code, which was 
assumed by the high priest in the new Jewish 
community, even before the arrival of Ezra (see 
above), we shall have to recognize an influence 
exerted, prior to its imblic promulfjation, by the 
legislation of the Priests' Code which was gradu- 
ally arranged or collected, if not composed, by 
the scribes in Babylon. In this Code, as is ^cfl 
known, the high priest has a unique position 
given to him. The influence of the same legisla- 
tion is probably to be traced likewise in the ex- 
plicit distinction between priests and Levites 
amongst who returned witli Ezra, and still 
more clearly in the circumstance that some priests 
who returned with Ezra traced their descent to 
Aaron (Ithamar), but not to Zadok (Phiiichas). 
This influence of the Priests' Code upon tlie re- 
lations of the new community prior to Ezra's 
appearance in Palestine, is enough to exclude the 
view, which is sometimes put forward, that Ezra 
composed the Priests' Code after his arrival, i.e., 
according to the usual chronology, between the 
years B.C. 458 and 445 or 444. At least the rudi- 
mentary stage of the Priests' Code must be placed, 
in view of tne position of the liigh priest in the 
time of the pro[Miut Zcchariah, not less than about 
a century before the time of Ezra. 

In ail probability the publication of the Law was 
vou IV. — 6 

preceded by the appearance of tlie short jirophetiial 
writing which has come down to us under the 
name Malachi, which is derived from one of its 
catch-words, or may even be a title of honour 
given to its author. It was probably WTitten 
after the arrival of Ezra, as it occupies itself with 
the question of the mixed marriages, which, so 
far as we know, was first agitated by him. The 
covenant with the priests is called in Malachi the 
covenant with Levi or with the Levites (2*-*), 
which does not agree with the terminology of the 
Priests' Codex, and hence appears to pomt to a 
date prior to its publication. It cannot, surely, 
be supposed that, with reference to an oppression 
of the serving Levites by the priests, the latter are 
reminded by Malachi that Jahweh has entered 
into covenant with the whole tribe of Levi (Vogel- 
stein, p. 24 f.), for what Malachi complains of is 
not ill-treatment of the Levites by the priests, 
but that the priests handle the tdrdk wrongly and 
with respect of persons (2'"-), i.e. of course in their 
dealings with the community. Malachi calls 
those who present the offerings ' sons of I^evi ' (3^), 
and betrays no acquaintance with the term 
' Levites ' in the special sense of the Priests' Code, 
namely as the appellation of a cljuss of inferior 
ministers of the sanctuary. The terminology of 
the Priests' Codex had thus, at all events, not 
become current in the time of Malachi. It is 
true that in Malachi the payin^ of the tithes is 
demanded, not for the holding of feasts, as in Dt, 
but for the store-house of the temple, as ' food,' 
i.e. for those who live by their temple service 
(38.10) Tills agrees with the requirement of the 
Priests' Code published by Ezra, but tliis par- 
ticular ordinance may have come into force even 
prior to the publication of tlie Code. 
8. The Priesthood according to the Law 

do not know what was the compass of the law- 
book which obtained recognition under Ezra. 
Probably we should understand by it the whole 
Pentateuch. The narrative of the reading of the 
law and the binding of the people to obey it is 
scarcely, it is true, taken directly from the 
Memoirs of Ezra, but certain traces indicate that 
it goes back to these. The indications whidi 
the narrative of the reading of the law gixos 
as to its contents point in ]iart (the prohibition 
of marriage with the Canaanites, Neh 10^') to 
Deuteronomy, or even to tlie still older legislation 
contained in the Jehovistic book, but fn great 
measure to enactments which are to be found 
only in the code contained in that source of the 
Pentateuch which it lias become customary to 
call as a whole the ' Priestly Writing' (Neh 8"'- '» 
IQW. soir.) This portion of the law of Ezra is a 
new factor which, at whatever time it may have 
originated, had not hitlicrto obtained public recog- 
nition or been generally known. It is true that 
in certain new ordinances regarding the situation 
of the priests, introduced in the period between 
the First Return and the arrival of Ezra (see 
above, § 7), influences are to be traced which pro- 
ceeded from this code, whether already in existence 
or in process of coming into being. 

The Priestly Writing occupies itself more than 
any of the collections of laws that had hitherto 
obtained validity, with tlie relations of the priest- 
hood, and, on this account and because of its having 
undeniably originated in the circle of the priests, 
may be called after them. Its legislation, which 
deals mainly with ritual, is not, indeed, specially 
designed for the priests. It is not meant to bo a 
manual of rules for the discharge of the priestly 
service. These, indeed, are not fully given on 
many points ; rather are the readers or hearers it 
has m view, primarily the members of the con- 




grcjiation. The latter, however, are instructed 
mainly ahout the organization of the holy ser- 
vice and of those who perform it, about the rights 
and duties appertaining to the priests. Neverthe- 
less, for the sake of brevity, the law contained in 
the ' Priestly Writing ' may be called, after the 
example of others, the Priests' Code. 

a. The priests in the LaiB of Holiness and in 
particular 't6r6th.' — It is owing only to redaction 
by a single hand that the Priests' Code has 
reache<l a harmonious character ; this redaction 
has clearly welded it together from a variety of 
con)ponents. Even the vieAvs it rives of the 
priestly relations have not been all cast in one 
mould. In those components of the Priests' Code 
«liich manitestly are to be recognized as the 
oldest, the so-called ' Law of Holiness,' i.e. the 
main stock of Lv 17-26, as well as particular 
tOrdth akin to this, which were perhaps originally 
combined with it or may have had currency by 
themselves (Lv 6f., 11 [12-15. 27], Nu 5""- 6'-''' 
15^'"*'), we hear onlyof ' the priests ' or ' the priest,' 
namely the one officiating ; but the priests are not 
more clearly defined as to their descent, and there 
is no mention of Levites or other sanctuary servants 
alon^ with them. It is a later process of redaction 
that lias introduced into these passages the designa- 
tion of the priests with reference to Aaron and his 
sons. In Lv 6' (Eng.") 'sons of Aaron ' appears 
to stand in the place of an original ' the priest,' 
for this subject is followed in y.^W by the singular 
of the verb. The quite isolated mention of the 
Levites in these portions (Lv 25'="**) is certainly 
an interpolation. On the other hand, even the 
original Law of Holiness probably contained very 
minute prescriptions as to purity on the part of 
the priests (Lv 21"'-). This law appears, further, 
to have been acquainted with a chief priest, for 
the connexion of tiie section which hays down 
special rules for hi- .Jritj' (Lv 21"'*'-) with the 
Law of Holiness scarcely admits of a doubt (it is 
doubted, indeed, by H. Weinel, 'nu'D und seine 
Denvate,' in ZATlV, 1898, p. 28 AT.). In favour 
of this connexion is the expression, not used else- 
where in tlie Priests' Code, " the priest who is 
greater than his brethren ' (v.'"). To the older 
elements probably belongs also the prescription 
that this Hrst priest is not to leave the sanctuary 
in the event of a bereavement (Lv 21''''), whicli 
presujiposes that he lives in the sanctuary (as 
Eli did), a view which is taken nowhere 
in the Priests' Code. 

To what date these oldest components of the 
Priests' Code should be attributed it is hard to de- 
citle. At present they are usually assigned to the 
Exile, near the time of E/ckiel. So much is un- 
questionably right, that the Law of Holineiis still 
existed as a collection by itself during the Exile, 
and that it received then its conclu.sion which tits 
only that period (Lv 26'"-) But, beyond this, 
it. does not follow necessarily from the special 
points of contact between Ezekiel and this law, 
that both belong to nearly the same period. 
These points of contact may be due to the fact 
that Ezekiel made quite a special use of the Law 
of Holiness, and specially attached himself to it. 
The demand which stands at the head of this law 
(Lv 17'"), that all slaying of animals must take 
place before the sanctuary (which was afterwards 
brour;ht by a redactor into relation to the tent of 
meeting, which was not originally mentioned), 
could be obeyed only at a time when there were 
more sanctuaries than one (so, followin" Dillmann, 
Gesch. p. 47). This would lead us to think of the 
pre-Deuteronomic period. That the author of the 
Deuteronornic law was acquainted with the tCrdli 
about leprosy which has come down to us in Lv 
13 L, outside the specially so-called ' Law of Holi- 

ness,' but belonging to those special tCrCth akin to 
this law (see above), is not improbable, seeing that, 
at all events, some<ora/t entrusted to the 
priests is known to him (Dt 24*). 

If the Law of Holiness originally presupposed 
the existence of a plurality of sanctuaries, it 
remains doubtful whether it thinks of a single 
chief priest for all the sanctuaries, or assumes lliat 
there will be a number of chief priests taking 
charge of the different sanctuaries. 

b. The Aaronitc /jHrais.— The other components 
of the Priests' Code exhibit a harmonious system 
of organization of the priesthood ; although even 
here, in matters of detail, dilierences of various 
strata and innovations are not to be overlooked. 
A priesthood, according to the Priestlj' Writing, 
first came into beiuf; in Israel in the time of 
Moses, when the one legitimate place of sacrifice, 
the tent of meeting, was by Divine direction 
established. Previously, according to this writing, 
the fathers of Israel had ottered no sacrifices, and 
consequently required no priests. Moses installed 
as priests his brother Aaron and the latter's sons. 
Only to the descendants of these do the priestly 
rights pass on. The terms ' sons of Aaron ' and 
'priests' are thus synonymous (Ex 28-" 29'" 4U'''"''- 
etc.). Only two of Aaron's sons, Eleazar and 
Ithamar, perpetuate the family. A preference, 
however, is given to the sons of Eleazar above 
those of Ithamar, when, on tl.e occasion of a pro- 
pitiatory action on the part of Phinehas, the son of 
Eleazar, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood 
is entered into only with hira and his seed (Nu 

For the exercise of the holy office the sons of 
Aaron are provided with a special priestly attire. 
Ex 28*'"'- — linen breeches and a long coat {kith- 
oneth), besides a girdle and a turban. The uiipcr 
garments are, according to Ex 39-", to be all of 
shcsh, i.e., borrowing an Egy])tian term, by-rsus, 
therefore white, till we come to the girdle, vliicli, 
according to Ex 39^ (if liere it is the girdle of the 
priefts in general and not that of the high priest 
that is spoken of), is composed of the four colours 
of the sanctuary, namely white, crimson, blue- 
purple, and red-jniriile. At all events, according 
to Josephus {Ant. III. vii. 2), the white ground of 
the priest's girdle had flowers of the four colours 
wTought into it. Shoes, which are nowhere men- 
tioned, are apparently not to be worn by the 
priests while performing the sacred ottice ; they 
probably go barefooted (Ex 3' [JE]), just as the 
Phoenician priests wore not shoes but linen socks 
(Pietschsmann, Gesch. der Phonizier, Uerlin, 1889, 
p. 223). The white garments of correspond 
to the linen robe, the 'cj^ltod bad, which in oldrn 
times was worn by the Hebrew priest.-; (1 S 2"). 
Linen was the material of the priest's dress also 
among the Babylonians (Gunkel, Archiv /. lie- 
ligion.swissensrhiiJ't, i. [1898] p. 297) and the Egyp- 
tians (Ancessi, p. 10211'.; Kenan, Jlist. du pcujile 
d' Israel, i. 149; Gesch. p. 70 f.). The employment 
of shesh instead of the more common linen is to 
be set down as <a later refinement. 

The ritual fiinctiuns oi the priests, specified in 
the Priests' Code, are of a manifold char.-vcti"-. 
The priests have to sprinkle the blood of the 
victim in the sanctuary (Lv !»• "■ '» etc.), to offer 
the sacrifices (i.e. lay them upon the altar and 
cause them to go up in the sacred lire (Lv 
27-». lat. 16-17 gtc. ) ; they .alone may accomplish the 
kapparah ('covering') cflected by the presentation 
of tlie offerings (Lv4-"'-*' etc.). On the other hand, 
the killing, flaying, and cutting up of the victim 
is, according to the Priests' Code (differing in this 
from Ezekiel), the business of the person making 
the ottering, even should he be a layman (Lv 
!"• al.; see Gesch. p. 114 f.). The priests have. 




further, to ponr ont the drink-offering (Nu 6") 
thev have to jierform the whole ser\'i<-e connectei 
lie altar of burnt -offering (Kx 30-*) and 

(spoken with special reference to Aaron) tlie altar 
of incense (Ex 30"). Only an Aaronite, and 'no 
stranger' may offer incense at all (Nu 17° [Eng. 
IB*"]). The Aaronites alone have charge of the 
table of shewbread (Lv 24', siioken specially of 
Aaron) and the candlestick (Ex 27*'). From Ex 
30"-, Lv 24', Nu 8^- it does not result that, accord- 
ing to another older enactment, onl}' the high 
priest had charge of the candlestick (Vogelstein, 
p. 63). Wlien ' Aaron ' alone is spoken of here. 
It is as the representative of the priesthood 
in general. As such he performs in the Priests' 
Code the whole of the priestly sen-ice, and in 
other passages as well he is named alone as stand- 
ing for the ]iriests in general. E.\ 27-' * Aaron and 
his sons ' will not be incorrect, then, as the explana- 
tion of tlie other passages which speak of Aaron 
alone. Only the priests may go within the sanc- 
tuary (Ex 30™). A ' stranger,' i.e. a non-Aaronite, 
who ajiproaches the altar or the space inside the 
curtain shall die (Nu 18'). Amongst the 
articles which may be approached only by holy 
persons, i.e. only by the priests, is reckoned even 
the laver in the fore-court CE.x 30^). 

Even outside the sanctuary there are special 
duties assigned to the priests. They have to 
remove the ashes from the altar to a clean place 
without the camp (Lv 6^ [Eng. "]) ; they have 
(specially Eleazar, but this while Aaron was yet 
alive) charge of the holy anointing oil (Nu 4", 
which is perhaps to be assigned to a redactor, see 
Dillm. Nunwri, etc., 1886, p. 14 f.). They alone 
may pronounce the blessing upon the people (Nu 
6'°"), and in war or at the festivals are to blow 
with the sacred trumpets (Nu lO'*- 3P). They 
have to watch over the distinction between holy 
and profane, unclean and clean, and to instruct 
the children of Israel in all statutes which Jahweh 
has s|>oken to them through Moses (Lv 10""-), 
whereby probably those statutes are specially in- 
tended which have regard to holy and profane, 
clean and unclean. 

The priests have, further, to pronounce the curse 
on the woman who is accused of adulterj', and to 
give her the water of bitterness to drink (Nu 5"*-); 
they have to reconsecrate the head of the Nazirite 
who has been defiled (Nu 6"), to determine the 
presence of leprosy in human beings, in houses, 
and in clothes, as well as to pronounce the declara- 
tion of cleanness from leprosj', and, in the latter 
case, to carry out the sprinkling of the man to be 
cleansed with the sacrificial blood, as well aa the 
sjirinkling and pouring out of oil (Lv 13 f.). At 
tlie slaying and burning of the red heifer, frora 
whose ashes the water of purification for those 
who have been defiled by touching a dead body is 
to be prepared, the priest (Eleazar in the lifetime 
of Aaron) is to be present; he has to sprinkle the 
blood, and to throw various ingredients into the 
burning (Nu Iff'"-). The priests have, further, to 
determine the valuation of persons that have been 
vowed (Lv 27'), of vowed unclean beasts (v.'"-), of 
the consecrated house (v.") or field (v.'""-). 

Aaron and Iiis sons are itutnlletl in office by a 
solemn consecration, with ' filling of the hand,' i.e. 
by the presenting of a dedicatory oH'cring jilaced 
in their hand, the ' fill-oll'cring' (Ex 29, Lv 8 al.; 
cf. on the filling of the hand, above, § 2). That 
this act of consecration is to bu repeated in the 
case of every priest afterwards is not said, and how 
far this was actually done is questionable (Sihiirer, 
p. 231 f., note 25). In other passages an anointing 
of the priests is spoken of (Ex 28" 30»° al.). But 
at the same time the title 'the anointed' as an 
oxpressioD of honour is used only of the high priest 

(Lv 4'- '• "«/.). At the ceremony of consecrating 
the priests there is mention only of the anointing 
of Aaron (Ex 20'), and the anointing is viewed as 
the sign of the high-priestly succession (v.^). 

Clearly we have to do here (as Wellhausen 
was the first to see) with two strata of the Priests' 
Code ; one of which assumes the anointing of all 
priests, the other only that of the high priest. 
Through combining the two views, thedescri]ition 
has ongin.ated which makes it appear as if origin- 
allj" all priests were anointed, while in future the 
high priest alone is to be anointed {Gesch. jpp. 25, 
48 f.). Nowhere in the OT outside the Priests' 
Code is the anointing of ordinary priests assumed, 
but that of the high priest is assumed in several 
passages (Weinel in ZATW, 1S98, p. 28). 

Full priestly rights belong to such Aaronites as 
are free from bodily defects. No one who suffers 
from any such blemish is to go within the sanctu- 
ary or approach the altar. On the other hand, 
even such persons are entitled, like the other 
Aaronites, to eat of the holy and the most holy 
offerings (Lv 21"'''). On pain of being cut off, the 
priests have to refrain from sacrificing and from 
eating of the sacrificial Hesh as long as they are 
tt'iintcd with any Levitical unclcanness (Lv 22-'''). 
The prohibition which applied to all Israelites 
(Lv 17"'') against eating the flesh of an animal 
that had died of itself or been torn, is addressed 
with special emphasis to the priests (Lv 22'). 
Before performing the sacred ofhce they have to 
wash their hands and feet in the brazen laver (Ex 
3Qi»ff. 4031'.)^ and may not, before going into the 
sanctuary to perform their duties, drink wine or 
strong drink (Lv 10"-). They are forbidden to 
marry a harlot, a polluted, or a divorced woman 
(Lv 21'). A priest's daughter who by harlotry has 
profaned the office of her father is to be bunied 
with fire (v."). The priests are forbidden to defile 
themselves through the dead, with the exception 
of defilement by the corpse of the nearest blood 
relations (Lv 21"'-). In all cases of bereavement 
they are forbidden to exhibit signs of mourning 
by niakin" a baldness upon their heads, cutting 
their beards at the comers, or making cuttings in 
their flesh (v.°). — These prescriptions for the main- 
taining of purity on the part of the priests are found 
to a large extent in the Law of Holiness, and may 
already have belonged to its main stock, and thus 
have been merely adopted by the Priests' Code. 

c. The hirfh priest. — At the head of the priestly 
liody stands, in the time of Moses, his orother 
Aaron, and in later times always one of the 
descendants of the latter (E.\ 29'^'- etc.). After 
the death of Aanm the functions of chief priest 
are undertaken by his eldest son Eleazar, who in 
turn is succeeded by his son Phinehas (Nu 25""-) ; 
which seems to assume an arrangement for the 
succession of the firstborn. Aaron, like the other 
priests, usually bears the simple title hn-kohcn 
(Ex 29™ 31'° etc.). There are few passa-ies in 
which the chief priest receives the name of honour 
'the anointed priest' {ha-kdltcn ha-nutihiah, Lv 
4s, e. i« gis . cf Gcsrh. p. 26 ; these ]ias.sagcs, and, in 
general, the majority of those in P in which an 
anointing is mentioned, are considered by Weinel 
[ZATW, 1S9S, p. 30 if.] to be additions). Equally 
seldom, three times onlj', does the chief priest bear 
the title ' high priest' {ha-kulu'n ha-fjddid, Lv 21'°, 
Nu 35-^- **). The high-priestly digiiitv is clearly 
thought of aa conferred for life (Nu 35-^- **). With 
solemnities lasting for seven days each new high 
priest is to be installed in ollice, with putting on 
of the holy attire, anointing, and filling the hand 
(Ex 29""'-) ; he has on this occasion, like Aaron on 
the day of his anointing, to offer a minliah (L^- 
e"" ; so at least according to the present text, 8e« 
Dillm. ad loc.). 




The chief priest is distinguished by two minutely 
described official costumes. One of these is wholly 
of linen. He wears this only when he goes into 
the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement (Lv 
Kjj. 5S. 82) i„ discharging the rest of his functions, 
lie has to wear above the white kcthoneth of shPsh 
worn by all the priests, a variegated dress of tlie four 
colours of the sanctuary, blue-purple, red-purple, 
crimson, and white, interwoven witli gold (Ex2S°°'-, 
Lv 8'"- nl. ). The difi'erent parts of this dress are 
de.scribed in detail, yet their exact structure is not 
quite clearly recognizable. Above his under- 
garment the high priest wears his distinguishing 
ciiliod, ke]it together at the shoulders by a couple 
of clasps formed of shoham stone, upon each of 
which are engraved six names of tne tribes of 
Israel (cf. art. EPHOD). Upon his breast, above 
the ephod, the hirfi priest wears the four-cornered 
hdshen suspended by little chains. Set in this 
externally are twelve precious stones in four rows, 
having engraved upon them the names of the 
twelve tribes. The hdshen must be conceived of 
as a species of pocket (cf. art. Breastplate of 
THE High Peiest), for in it are deposited the 
Urim and Thummim, which evidently are to be 
thought of as tangible objects (cf. art. Urim AND 
Thummim). Upon the hem of the upper-garment 
(me'il) which was attached to the ephod, there 
iian" alternately pomegranates and little bells. 
In the front of his turban (miznephcth) the high 
priest wears upon his forehead a golden diadem 
mscribed ' Holy to Jahweh.' The high priest 
alone is entitled to carry the Urim and Thummim 
(Ex 28™, Lv 8"), and to pronounce the 'judgment 
of the Urim ' before Jahweh ; and by this decision, 
as that of a Divine oracle, Israel has to abide (Nu 

None but the high priest may go into the Holy 
of Holies on the yearly Day of Atonement, to 
make propitiation for the priests and the congrega- 
tion, and carry through the ceremony with the two 
goats, in which he has to make atonement also for 
the sanctuary (Lv W^-, cf. Ex SO"). Above all, it 
rests with hmi alone to make atonement for his 
own guUt and that of his house (Lv 4'"-, cf. 9"'-), 
as well as for the community as a whole (Lv 4'*^-, 
cf. y*; differently,, as it would appear, Nu 15^, 
see Gesch. p. 27, note). He has to ofl'er a daily 
minhdh (Lv 6'^"'*, where ' on the day of his anoint- 
ing' [v."] is probably a later addition, by which 
the daily offering is transformed into one offered 
once for all at the time of his installation in the 
priestly office). Moreover, he has to take his share 
in the service rendered by the other priests (Ex 
27"'). The r61e of mediator, apart from the above- 
luentioned atoning transactions, he assumes by 
bearing upon his breastplate the names of the 
children of Israel, when he goes into the sanctuary 

The high priest Eleazar is named in the first 
rank, along with Joshua, the prince of the tribes 
(Nu 34""-, cf. Jos 14'). At his word, spoken by 
means of the Urim, the whole congregation is to 
go out and come in (Nu 27^°''-). After the death 
of the high priest the manslayer is safe to leave 
the city of refuge (Nu 35^- ^). The duration of 
the high priest's office is treated in tliis enactment 
as an epoch at whose close certain questions that 
have remained open are to be regarded as now 
settled (the interpretation proposed in Gesch. p. 28, 
and approved by Van Hoonacker, Sacerdoce, etc. 
p. 340, linds no justification either in the Priests' 
Code or in the OT generally). The high priest 
holds no other position ol secular authority. 
When Moses and Aaron together number the 
people (Nu 1'- "), Aaron acts in this matter simply 
as the brother of Israel's leader. 
Special injunctions regarding purity are laid 

upon the high priest, which are stricter than those 
for the rest of the priests. Like the latter, they 
are found in the Law of Holiness. According to 
them, ' the priest who is greater than his brethren ' 
may marry only a virgin of his people, and not, .as 
is permitted to the other priests, a widow (Lv 
21'^*-). He is not to delile himself through any 
dead body, even that of a father or mother (v."). 
He is forbidden, as a sijjn of mourning, to let his 
hair grow long or to rend his clotlies (v.'"). 

If the high i)riest have brought guilt upon the 
people through any sin of his, he has to present a 
sin-offering, with ceremonies specially prescribed 
for this particular case (Lv 4''''), because a sin on 
the part of the spiritual head of the people is 
looked on as bringing special trouble upon the 
whole community. Sms affecting the priesthood, 
i.e. violations of the laws given to the priests, 
have to be expiated by Aaron and his sons 
(Nu 18'; not by the high priest alone [Benzinger, 
p. 422], but by him and the rest of the priests). 

d. The Lemtcs. — The Aaronite priests are, in the 
Priests' Code, a special family of the tribe of Levi. 
The designation ' Levites ' is only in isolated 
instances used of all that belong to this tribe, 
including the Aaronites^Ex 6=», Lv25'='-, NuSo'") ; 
it is usually applied to the non-Aaronite Levites 
alone. The whole tribe is, like the other tribes, 
divided into ' fathers' houses ' with their heads or 
princes (Ex 6^, Nu 3'^"). The tribe as a whole is 
considered as consecrated to God, this by w.ay of 
compensation for the firstborn of man in Israel 
who all rightfully belonged to the Deity (Nu 
3'^'- al.). The Levites in the narrower sense are 
not, like the Aaronites, servants of Jahweh, but 
are given to the priests or to Jahweh for the 
service of the tabernacle, as is emphatically ex- 
pressed in the designation of the Levites as 
nethihilni, 'given' (Nu 3" 8" 1S«), wliich cleariy 
stands in some relation to tlie name a)>plied to the 
foreign temjile-slaves in the Bks. of Ezr and Neh, 
namely, Nethinim. In other passajjes, without 
the term nithuvim being employed, it is said of 
the Levites that they serve the dMelling-place of 
Jahweh, or that they serve Aaron, or the congre- 
gation. Here, as in the case of the priestly 
service, the verb shdreth is used, but not, as in 
that case, absolutely, but with the object of 
service: the 'dwelling-place,' i.e. the tent of 
meeting, ' Aaron,' or ' the congregation ' (Nu 1" 
3" \& 18'). The Levites minister to the priests 
' before ' the tent of meeting. The Levites are 
forbidden to approach, like the priests, the vessels 
in the inner sanctuary or the altar ; by doing so 
they would bring death upon themselves and upon 
the priests (Nu 18-'-). The technical term for the 
service of the lievites is shumnr, ' guard,' which 
suits the Levites of the Priests' Code in so far as 
they, in the arrangement of the camp, have to 
encamp with the priests immediately around the 
tabernacle, so that in point of fact they do guard 
the latter (Nu P»- ''^ al.). A 'stranger,' i.e. one 
who is neither priest nor Levite, who intrudes into 
this circle round the holy dwelling-place, shall lie 
(Nu 3^). The standing employment of the verb 
s/uiinar for the service of the Levites indicaftea 
clearly that the ]irescription for the (purely ideal) 
arrangement of the camp corresponds to some 
actual duties performed by tliose whom the 
Priests' Code calls Levites. Surely the shdmar 
of the Levites has some connexion with the work 
of the doorkeepers of the temple in the Bk. of 
Ezra. The Levites are called in the Priests' Code 
directly shomrS mishmfrclh, ' guardians ' of the 
sanctuary or 'the dwelling-place' of Jahweh (Nu 
3j«. 3J 31^0. 47). i„ j^u 33a ti,g tgrn, jg extended 

even to the priests, with reference to the arrange- 
ment of the camp. Besides, the same verb shdmat 




is employed in an untechnical sense, in a few 
isolated instances in the Priests' Code (Nu 3'° IS'), 
of tlie priestly service in general (so also in the 
post - exilic Zechariah), and then, further (so 
akdmar is used in the Priests' Code), of the ser- 
vice of God in general, i.e. of one's attitude 
towards His coniniandnients (Gn 26'). All this 
shows that we have here to do with a very 
ancient teriuinolo^'j', which probably reaches back 
far bej'ond the time when there was a special 
class of doorkeepers of the temple. Perhaps it 
preserves a trace that the Levitus were originally 
the ' guarding ' escort of the sacred ark, which 
would be quite conceivable, even if the name lewt 
has nothing to do with this duty (.see above, § 1). 
In any case, it may be gathered from the above 
use otshdmar that the guarding of a sanctuary in 
some form was at one time the essential task of 
tlie Levites. It has been suggested that it was 
the guarding of a divine image, as was the main 
duty of the priest among the ancient Arabs (Well- 
hausen, Bcste", p. 130). But tliere appears to be a 
special reference to the escorting of the sacred 
ark, which accompanied Israel in Uieir joumeyings 
and campaigns, in the remarkable term, likewise 
used very occasionally of the LeWtes' service, zdba', 
' to render military service ' (Nu 4" al.). 

When the host of Israel is upon the march, the 
Levitical family of the Kohathites has charge of 
carrj'ing the tabernacle and its vessels, after these 
have been covered by the jiriests from the view of 
the Levites, who may not look upon them (Nu 
4"). None but Levites may attend to the carry- 
ing and the setting-up of the tabernacle ; any non- 
Levite doing so oe put to death (Nu 1" 18*- **). 
Hence the service of the Levites is si)oken of as 
a ' covering ' for the children of Israel, that no 
plague come upon them when they come nigh to 
the sanctuary (Nu 8'"). Then it is the Levites 
who, according to Ex 38-', under the direction of 
the Aaronite Itliamar, take cliarge of the ' num- 
bering of the dwelling of the testimony,' i.e. the 
keeping account of the gifts offered for its con- 
struction. There is no indication of any other 
duties performed by the Levites than of 
carrying the tabernacle, encamping around the 
sanctuary, and keeping the account just men- 
tioned. Wherein, apart from encamping round 
the sanctuary, consisted tlie charge assigned to 
the Levites over the dwelling of the testimony 
and all its vessels and everything belonging to it 
(Nu 1""), or 'tlie keeping of the charge' of the 
dwelling of the testimony and its vessels (Nu l"* 
3* nl.), or the 'work' of the Levites 'about the 
tabernacle' (Nu 4''), or tlieir 'service' about the 
dwelling or the tabernacle (Nu S"- 4^ al.) — is not 
indicated. Thus we do not learn what the Levites 
have to do when tlie sanctuary is set up and the 
service is being cunducted in it, and tlius have, 
further, no indication of what is to be the work 
of the Levites once Israel has reached the goal of 
its wanderings and attaincil to a settled mode 
of life. It may only be Kujiposcd from the desig- 
nation of tlie Levite.s' work as 'service of the 
congregation,' that the intention of the law was 
to assign to the Levites some kind of intermediate 
function between tlie congregation and the priests. 
The lower services at the sanctuary, once it was 
set up, appear also to be pointed to in Nu 1°", 
wh >re the service of the tabernacle is presented as 
a duty distinct from that of carrying it. 

The data regarding the period of service of the 
Levites are not hannonious. In Nu 4'"- it is given 
as from the thirtieth to the fiftieth year ; Nu 8^*", 
on the other hand, enacts that the Levites have 
to serve from their twentj'lifth year, and it is 
added that from their liftieth year onwards they 
are no longer to serve, but to assist their brethren 

(the serving Levites). This enactment is clearly 
a later addition (Gesch. p. 34). 

In Nu 8^"^- a ceremony for the installation of the 
Levites is described : tlie children of Israel (no 
doubt the elders) lay their hands upon them as 
upon an offering, and the Levites are waved be- 
fore Juhweh a* a gift of tlie Israelites — a repre- 
sentation which manifestly results from the con- 
ception of the Levites as a substitute for the 
ofl'ering of the firstborn of man. They are to be 
treated in this ceremony — which cannot be thought 
of as literally peifornicd, but simply gives expres- 
sion to a theory — like those sacrificial jiortions 
which fall to the priests, because the Levites also 
are given to the latter to be their own (so rightly 
A. Van Hoonacker, Le vosu de Jephthi, Louvain, 
1893, p. 40 tr.). 

The 'tribe of Levi,' t.e. probably the Levites 
and also the Aaronites, is exempted from bein" 
numbered amongst the children of Israel (Nu 1" 
2^), i.e. from military service. 

Sins affecting the sanctuary, i.e. any defilement 
of it, have to be expiated by the Aaronites and 
Aaron's father's house, the Kohathites, that bnuu !i 
of the Levites who have to carry the holiest vessels 
(Nu 18'). The Levite.s, without distinction, have 
to expiate the sins of their service (Nu 18^). 

The di-Hinction betiveen priests and Levites is 
not rejiresented as having gained validity without 
opposition. The narrative of the rebellion of the 
Levite Korali against Aaron and Moses (Nu 16) 
serves to exhibit this distinction as one divinely 
determined : the prerogatives of Aaron are estab- 
lished in opposition to Korah. In this account, 
however, a still older narrative, belonging to an- 
other stratum of the Priests' Code, may be dis- 
entangled, in which Korah stands up, not for the 
preroi'atives of the Levites as against the Aaron- 
ites, but for those of the whole congiegation as 
against the Levites. To this older stratum at- 
taches itself the narrative of Nu IT""-, in which 
the budding of Aaron's rod conlirms the unique 
position, not of the Aaronites, but of the whole 
tribe of Levi {Gcsch. p. 34 ff. ; of. art. KOEAH, 
Datiian, Abiram). 

e. 2'he serving women. — Only in a single pa.ssage 
in the Priests' Code is there mention of serving 
women (Ex 38'). They mini.ster at the door of 
the tabernacle ; and this service, like that of the 
Levites, is described by the term zCibd' ; but wherein 
it consisted we have not a word of information. 
We learn merely that these women were provided 
with mirrors of brass. The only other reference 
in the whole of the OT to such women as servin" 
at the sanctuary is in 1 S 2*'-'' (wanting in LXX 
except in A and Luc. ), where they are introduced 
as if they had been in existence in the time of Eli 
at Shiloli ; but as in this pa.ssage the ' tent of 
meeting' is spoken of, as in the Priests' Code, 
whereas, in other passages, at Shiloh a built temple 
is presupposed, we have to do, no doubt, with an 
interpolation based ujion the Priests' Code. 

f. Tlie revenues of the priests and Levites. — The 
]iriests, like the Levites, have a fixed revenue 
assigned them in return for their services. It is 
presuiiposed in this that they are without posses- 
sions, I.e. they have not, like the other tribes, a 
tribal territory (Nu IS"-"'- 26"^). 

The priests dues from the offerings, the t(ru- 
mvth, ' ncavo-ofi'erings' (Nu IS'-'"), are calculated 
on a more liberal scale than in Ot and even than 
in Ezk, or at all events they are sjiccilicd more 
exactly than in the latter book, which does not 
name the tithe and the firstlings. The skin of 
the burnt-offering falls to the officiating priest 
(Lv 7") ; from the «/iiV(/Hii"»H-oirerings he is entitled 
to a cake (v.'''), as well as to the and 
the heave-thigh (ICx 2'.)-'"- al.); in the of tliu 




sh^amtm-oSeTing of the Nazirite he receives not 
only the wave-breast and heave-thigh, but also 
the slioulder of the ram and two cakes as a wave- 
oftering (Nu 6'"-). Of the 'holy,' i.e. not 'most 
holy,' ofTerings the male and female members of 
tlie house of Aaron are to eat in a clean place the 
wave-breast and the liea\e-thigh, and in general 
the tiruiiwth that fell due of these oU'erings (Lv 
10'''-, Nu IS'"); the priest who presents the offering 
may thus bring these jiortions into his house 
ancl there distribute them. The members of the 
priest's house who are entitled to participate in 
those meals are exactly specified ; any one who by 
mistake and without warrant eats of the holy 
thing is to restore to the priest what he has taken, 
witli a fifth part added to it (Lv 22'"''-)- Every 
tSrumdh belongs to the particular priest to whom 
on any occasion one hands it over, and not to the 
whole of the priests (Nu 5"-). Of the ' most holy' 
offerings — the minhah, the guilt-oft'ering, and the 
sin-offering— nothing may be taken into the priests' 
houses ; whatever portion of these does not find 
its way to the altar, or is not in certain specified 
instances burned (Lv 6^), is to be eaten only by 
Levitically clean male Aaronites in the holy place, 
according to the diflerent regulations for the re- 
spective offerings, it may be by the priest who 
presents the ottering, it may be by all male Aaron- 
ites (Lv 2' 5^' 6" etc.). The shewbread also, as 
most holy, is to be eaten by male Aaronites in 
the holy place (Lv 24'). 

Besides the above, the priests have firstling- 
dues. To them belong the firstborn of clean beasts ; 
those of unclean beasts and of man are to be 
redeemed (Nu 18"^-)- The redemption price, for 
arriving at which a mode of reckoning is given, 
probably falls, as a logical consequence, to the 
priests, although this is not expressly stated [Gesch. 
p. 41). In later times, at all events, it was so 
arranged (Schiirer, p. 254). In the case of the first- 
bom of clean beasts, the flesh, in so far as this is not 
the portion of the altar, falls to the priest, and may 
be eaten by him and the male and female members 
of his household (Nu 18"'-). The reshlth that has 
to be offered of oil, must, ana com, as well as the 
first-fruits {bikkHrim) of everything, belong to the 
priests ; all clean persons in the priest's house, 
male and female, may eat of them (Nu IS"'-). 
The question whether rffslnth and bikkHrim have 
both to be paid from the same products of the 
ground niay remain open [Gesch. p. 124 ff. ; Schiirer, 
t>. 245). The two leavened firstling-loaves of the 
Feast of Pentecost, along with the two lambs to 
be added as a shilu»i{7n-oSeiin<^, are assigned to 
the priest (Lv 23*'). Further, of the devoted things 
that which is called fUrem belongs to the priests 
(Nu IS") ; likewise in the year of jubilee there 
falls to them the field regarded as Mrem, which 
has been dedicated, not redeemed, and yet sold 
(Lv 27-'). The rffshlth of dough, which, according 
to Nu 15"'", is to be paid to Jahweh, is probably 
to be understood as falling to the priests, although 
this is not expressly said. In the case of a with- 
holding of the proper dues, restitution has to be 
made to the priest, with the addition of a fifth 
part (Lv 5"). If any one has unwittingly taken 
from his neighbour anything belonging to him, 
and if restitution to the injured party is not pos- 
sible, the articles which require to be restored 
belong to the priest v ho oU'ers the guilt-offering 
for the offender (Nu 5*). 

Of sacred dues the tenth belongs to the Levites, 
wlio in turn have to pay a tenth of this to the 
priests (Nu 18-'- *"■■•). Originally, according to Nu 
IS", all that was in view here was the tenth of 
field and vineyard produce. It appears to be a 
later expansion when Lv Ti'^- demands, in addi- 
tion to this, the tenth of cattle and sheep. Priests 

and Levites receive a fixed percentage of the spoil 
taken in war (Nu 31^^). 

The Priests' Code enjoins, further, in what i« 
perhaps an addition subsequent to the time of 
Nehemiah, a tax for the sanctuary (Ex 30"^- ; see 
Gesch. p. 219f. ); this does not fall to the priests, 
but is spent on the ' service of tlie tent of meeting,' 
i.e. for tlie expense of the regular cultus. 

The idea that the tribe of Levi has no inherit- 
ance finds strange expression in the purely theo- 
retical and evidently late added (Gesch. p. 42 f.) 
statement (Nu 3^'-") that Jahweh has taken to 
Himself the cattle of the Levites in place of the 
firstborn of the cattle of the children of Israel. 
The matter is meant thus to be viewed as if the 
Levites had not an absolute property in their 
cattle, but only the usufruct of them. In speak- 
ing of the possession of cattle the Priests' Code is 
thinking of the injunction (which is not quite in 
harmony with the absence of possessions on the 
part of the tribe of Levi) that 48 cities in the 
Promised Land should be set apart for the tribe 
of Levi to dwell in, along with the surrounding 
pasture lands to feed tlieir cattle (Nu 35'*'). 
cities, with their houses and pasture lands, are an 
inalienable possession ; whatever may have been 
sold of them is redeemable at any time, and, if it 
is not redeemed, it returns to the Levites in the 
year of jubilee (Lv 25'-'^-)- The carrying out of 
this enactment about Levitical cities is recorded in 
a narrative in the Bk. of Joshua (ch. 21), belong- 
ing to the Priestly Writing ; and here a distinction, 
not found in the earlier directions, is made between 
LeWtical and priestly cities ; the sons of Aaron 
receive 13 of the 48 cities. 

g. The date of the priestly system in the ' Priesthj 
Writing.' — Even apart from the older elements 
(P', see above, § 8 a) which detach themselves from 
the main body of the Priests' Code, the date of the 
priestly system exhibited by this Code is not a 
single one. In general the consistent character of 
the system (P^) is not to be denied, but certain 
smaller constituents detach themselves as clearly 
new to it (P'). But, even after the removal of these 
elements, everything (in P^) is not of one cast ; in 
the view taken of the Levites, for instance, apart 
from an innovation (Nu S"'^' [see, further, below] 
and w.^** [see above, g 8 d]), there is no mistaking 
the presence of two different strata (in Nu 16, ci! 
ch. 17 ; see, further, below). 

At present it is commonly held that the whole of 
the priestly system of the Priests' Code, and in 
general this whole Code itself, belongs to the post- 
exilic period, and that Ezekiel's enactments regard- 
ing the priests, especially his distinction between 
Levites and priests, paves the way for the Priests' 
Code (so the adlierents of the Graf hypothesis). 
On one point there can be no doubt, namely this, 
that the affinity between the law of Ezekiel and 
the Priests' Code is so great that it can be explained 
only by the dependence of one of these upon the 
other. For the i)riority of Ezekiel it is quoted aa 
decisive that in his State of the future he knows no 
high iiriest such as stands at the head of tlie 
priestly body in the Priests' Code. Ezekiel, it is 
argued, does not mention the one unique function 
assigned to the high priest in the Priests' Code, 
namely the propitiatory transactions on the Day 
of Atonement, and it is hard to suppose him to 
have been acquainted with them. But the law 
concerning the Day of Atonement in Lv 16 bears 
quite a peculiar character which, e.g. in the con- 
ception of AZAZEL (which see), distinguishes it 
from the rest of the Priests' Code. This law has 
its place immediately before the Law of Holiness 
(Lv 17-26), which, as it appears to the present 
writer necessary to assume, was incorporated in 
the system of the Priests' Code, not by the real 





antlior of P' but by a later redactor ; probalily the 
section contained in Lv 1(5 was also a later 
addition (G&scA. p. 128 £. ), and so were also, in 
tliat cxse, as a matter of course, the merely brief 
allusions to the Day of Atonement which are found 
elsewhere in the Priests' Code. Ezekiel has no 
Day of Atonement, but nierelj' certain propitiatory 
transactions on two days eveiy J'ear, which look 
like a tirst step towards the Day of Atonement. 
There is no period at which the law of the Day of 
Atonement, of which there is not a trace in the 
pre-e.\ilic history, can be more readil)' conceived to 
tiave originated than during the great chastening 
of the K.xile, or even it may be shortly thereafter. 
Zee 3^ appears to contain the earliest allusion to 
tlie Day of Atonement. If the function a-ssi-^ned 
by the Priests' Code to the high ])rie8t on the I)ay 
of Atonement is a later insertion, the original 
liigli priest of this Code has no station left to him 
but that of primus inter pares. Even the distinc- 
tive dress he wears appears to mean nothing more 
(see below). A chief priest, however, was, beyond 
all doubt, found at Jerusalem prior to Ezekiel (see 
above, § 3). As to the further argument in favour 
of the priority of Ezekiel's system to that of the 
Priests Code, namely tliat Ezekiel was the first 
to introduce the distinction between priests and 
Levites, this rests upon an intcrjiretation, which 
per se is a possible one, but which is not to be 
deduced unconditionally from the language of 
Ezekiel. It is true that Ezekiel gave a new 
arrangement to the station of those Levites who 
had fiirnierli' been priests at the high places, but 
his language by no means excludes or even renders 
improbable the supposition that in the pre-exilic 
temjile there were other Levites besides these, or 
that there were, besides the foreign temple-slaves, 
other temple-servants not called Levites, or priests 
of the second rank side bj' side with the priests 
proper, i.e. the Zadokites (see above, § 6). We 
will seek to show further, below, that Ezekiel's 
designating of the priests as ' Zadokites,' in con- 
trast to their being called in the Priests' Code 
' Aaronites,' is by no means an evidence of Ezekiel's 

On two points, it is true, the Priests' Code con- 
tains regulations allecting the priests which cannot 
be sejiarated from its system (I*^), and which yet 
undoubtedly go beyond what is found in Ezekiel. 
In the Priests Code the tenth falls to the Levites 
and the tenth of the tenth to the priests, to whom 
belong also the firstborn of dean beasts. Ezekiel 
says nothing about either of these things. But in 
the Deuteronomic regul.itions it is clear that neither 
the tenth nor the lirstbom are considered as be- 
longing to the Levites or priests (cf., further, 

Other difTorences between the law of Ezekiel 
and that of the Priests' Code ap|)ear to the present 
writer to speak ncce.s.sarily in favour of the i)riority 
of the Priests' Code, or at least of the system repre- 
sented by it. In this Code the kiUinj;, flaying, and 
cutting up of the sacrilicial animal has to bo done 
by the layman presenting the ottering (Lv l"-'"- 
etc. J see Gcsrh. p. 114); in Ezekiel the Levites 
have to perform the killing. There can be no 
doubt that in this instance the Priests' Code repre- 
sents the earlier custom, which was based upon the 
view that by slaying his sacrifice the od'erer himself 
presents his gift to the deity, and thereby expresses 
the fact that it is meant for him. In Ezekiel, on 
the other hand, this action is undertaken by the 
Levites as a cla,ss intermediate between laity f.nd 
priests, in order to remove the layman a stage 
lurtlier from sacred functions. Vogclstein (p. 67), 
indeed, reverses the chronological order, and holds 
that the flow of an anti-Levite current has willi- 
drawn from the Levites the slaying of the sacrilicial 

victims ; but surely the slaughter bj' the hand of 
the sacrificing layman is a relic of primitive times 
when every Lsraelite was entitled to ofler sacrifice. 
Besides, by setting down the killing of the animal 
by the lay offerer as a later custom, a very im- 
probable course would be given to the development 
of the practice in this matter (as it cannot be 
imagined that the regulations of the Priests' Code 
we are considering are due to a later alteration of 
the text) ; that is to say, the Chronicler, who 
makes the Levites take part in the slaying of the 
victims (see below, § 9), would, on this view, have 
taken a step backwards from the Priests' Code in 
the direction of Ezekiel. The practice of later times 
in regard to the temple service appears, indeed, to 
have excluded both Laymen and Levites from the 
slaying of the sacrilicial animals, and to have 
reserved this for tlie priests alone (Biicliler, Priester, 
136 fl.); it is probably a matter of pure theory 
when tlie Talmud, in agreement with the Priests' 
Code (Vogclstein, p. G8, note 1), represents laymen 
as performing the act of slaughter. Amongst the 
oriTinances of Ezekiel which go beyond the Priests' 
Code in the of keeping the laity at a distance, 
besides the one we have considered, there are the 
enactments that the priests are not to come out 
amongst the people with their holy garments or 
with the sacrilicial portions, lest the people be 
hallowed thereby— regulations which are wanting 
in the Priests' Code. We find expressed here a 
materialistic conception of holiness as if it were 
something that could be transferred by external 
contact. The .same conception shows itself in the 
Priests' Code only, on what is not an impossible 
explanation, in the case of the sinolfcring (whoever 
touches the flesh of this ollcring ' l)ccomes holy ' [?], 
Lv 6** [Eng. -■']), and the ' most holy ' otl'erings in 
general (Lv 6" [Eng.'"] ; cf. Ex 2!(" :!0-'»). But in 
these pa.ssages the thought of ' becoming holy ' 
(Jlciligwerdcn) by touching can hardly be really 
present, rather would it apjiear tlint it is ' being 
holy' (Ileilirjscin), i.e. 'being a priest,' that is 
s]iccified as the condition of touching (see liaudissin, 
titndicn zur semit. Hfliijiunsgasrhiilde, ii., Leii)zig, 
1878, p. 54 f. note). The no'stexilic Haggai (a"*^) 
denies that contact with the skirt of a garment in 
which one carries holy flesh makes holy ; but he 
does not deny that direct contact with sacrilicial 
flesh has this efl'cct. In this way he does not, as 
Kuenen {ThT, 1890, p. 17) sujiposes, contradict 
Ezekiel ; and, therefore, we may not infer from 
Haggai's language that Ezekiel's view was an 
older one, which was abandoned in the post-exilic 
period (and so also in the Priests' Code, on the 
assumption of its composition). 

It is alleged that Ezekiel was not actjuainted 
with Lv Si'"', whore, perhaps, the priest is for- 
bidden (although this is extremely questionable) to 
defile himself for a dead wife. But this does not 
follow (Nowack, p. 115, note 1) from the faet that 
in Ezk 24'""- mourning on the part of the priest for 
his wife is assumed as a matter of course, for it is 
not mourning in general that is forbidden in Lv 21'"', 
but only certain specified mourning customs, besides 
the defilement by the coijise (v.° ; cf. Ezk 44'" ; cf. 
Job. Frey, 'I'od, Seeleiifflnubc tind Heelenkult ivi 
altcn Israel, Leipzig, IS'.tS, p. 74 f.). 

Ezekiel's arrangements about the Levitical and 
priestly land are much more practical than in the 
Priests' Code. In Ezekiel's State of the future, 
priests and Levites live in the immcdiiito neigh- 
oourhood of the temple where they have to serve; 
according to the Priests' Code they are distributed 
among dill'erent cities throughout the land, where 
they have nothing to do. It is hardly conceivable 
that the author of the Priests' Code should have so 
changed for the worse tlie arrangements of Ezekiel, 
if these were the earlier. Kather does the Priests 




Code in this instance stUl adhere more than Ezekiel 
to the conditions ■niiich really existed in the pre- 
exilic period. Amoni,'st the priestly cities named 
in Jos 21 (P), is Anathoth, which we know from 
Jeremiah as a city where priests lived. Among the 
Levitical cities are, further, included the si.\ Cities 
of Refuge. The latter were old sanctuaries to 
whose altar the manslayer fled. Besides, in the 
case of four of these Cities of Refuge which are 
named in Jos 21"*', it may be .shown either from 
hi-story or from the names themselves that they 
were places of worship (Hebron, Shechem, Kadesh, 
Ramoth [probably identical with Mizpah of Hos 

If the system represented by the Priests' Code is 
prior to Ezekiel, then the sUence of the latter 
about the tenth and the firstborn as priestly dues, 
can be explained only by assuming that these 
particular ordinances had not obtained practical 
recognition before Ezekiel's time, and that he 

Eurposely passes them over, presumably because 
e nad doubts as to the possibility of carrying 
them out. He is silent also as to the tithe-meals 
of Dt, and the sacrificial meals which, according to 
Dt, are to be held with the firstborn of cattle and 
sheep. He must have been acquainted with both 
these regulations, and has thus not sought to inter- 
fere with the treatment of the tenth and the 
firstborn. The old view, as represented in the Jeho- 
vistie book (Gn 28--), is that the tenth is to be given 
to the Deity. The same demand is expressly made 
by the Book of the Covenant (Ex 22-") in the case 
of the firstborn of cattle and sheep. The arrange- 
ment in the Priests' Code, in so far as it assigns 
tithes and firstborn to the servants of the Deity, 
comes nearer to this view than the common meals 
of Dt (see Dillmann on Lv 27^). The term ' tenth ' 
can originally have been applied only to an impost, 
and not to the material for a sacrificial meal (so 
also Van Hoonacker, Saccrdore, etc. p. 393). Only 
in this particular is something secondary to be 
recognized in the Priests' Code, namely that it 
assigns the tenth — difl'erently with the firstborn — 
not, or at least only indirectly, to the pr()])er ser- 
vants of the Deit}', namely the priests, but in the 
first instance to the servants of the sanctuary, the 

That the priestly legislation of the Priests' Code 
(P^) is to be placed prior to Ezekiel, appears to the 
present writer to result also from the circumstance 
that it shows no regard to the special conditions of 
the personnel of the sanctuary at the Return from 
the Exile. In the early days of the Jewish colony, 
at all events at the time of Ezra, if not earlier, 
we find, alongside of the priests, these classes — 
Levites, singers, and doorkeepers (both these 
originally distinct from the Levites), and Nethi- 
nim ; the Priests' Code, on the other hand, knows 
only the two— priests and Levites. The 
Levites, called in the Priests' Code netki'inim, are 
evidently intended to replace the foreign Nethinim 
who are no less disapproved of in the Priests' Code 
indirectly than they are in the direct polemic of 
Ezekiel. It may "be seen from the narrative 
portions of the I5k. of Joshua which belong to the 
Priestly Writing, that the Latter does not, indeed, 
mean to set aside the Netliinim entire!}'; for in 
Jos 9°', which evidently belongs to this source, it 
is said that the inhabitants of Gibeon and the 
neighbouring cities were set aside by the princes 
of Israel to be hewers of wood and drawers of 
water ' for the congregation.' These serfs are thus 
looked upon here, not as servants of the temple or 
the priests, but as servants of the congregation, 
i.e. the laity. As far as the temple service is con- 
cerned, their place ir, to be taken by the Levites. 
But the latter have in this matter, as it would 
appear, to discharge the functions, not so much of 

the Netliinim as of the post-exilic doorkeepers, for 
tliey are called ' keepers.' — It is difficult to suppose 
that a legislator, wlio was face to face with the 
comi)licated relations of the temple personnel in 
]>ost-exilic times, should have imagined that he 
could come to an adjustment with them by simply 
throwing all non-jiriestly temple-servants, without 
an)' further argument or justification, ictc a single 

In particular, upon any theory which makes the 
Priests' Code exilic or post-exilic, we miss in it that 
regard we should expect to the former priests of the 
high places, who, since the centralization of the 
cultus under Josiah, gave rise to difficulties. Josiah 
sought to exclude tliem from the Jerusalem cultus, 
but evidently was unable to set aside their pre- 
tensions to a share in the priestly service in the 
temple ; for Ezekiel considered it necessary to 
announce to them in unambiguous terms that it 
was God's decree that they should be removed from 
the priesthood. In Ezra s time only a few of the 
descendants of the old priests of the high places, 
those who, in Ezekiel's terminology, are called 
' Levites,' had accommodated themselves to the 
position assigned to them. It is true that the 
Priests' Code contains a clear trace of a conflict 
between the Levites and the priests, in the narrative 
of the rebellion of the Levite Korah against Moses 
and Aaron. But that the conflict here spoken of has 
regard to the claims of the deposed priests of the 
high places is not to be gathered. On the contrary, 
Korah cannot be the representative of these 
whilom bdmuth priests, for in the post-exilic period 
the Korahites belong to the singers or to the door- 
keepers (1 Ch 6-- O"* al.), and hence ijc/t to the 
LeWtes in the sense of that term as used by 
Ezekiel, and in the Memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiali, 
whose use of the term is fashioned upon Ezekiel's 
model. Instead of a conflict between former priests 
of the high places and the old Jerusalem priests, one 
might see in the narrative about Korah the de- 
scription of a conflict in the time after Ezra, when 
the singers were reckoned to the Le\'ites. This is 
the view of Vogelstein (p. 45 ff. ), who, upon the 
ground of very precarious combinations, places an 
attempt of these later Levites to seize the right of 
ofi'ering incense, in the time of the high priest 
Johanan I. (the son of Joiada) and the Persian 
satrap Bagoses, who probably belong to the reign 
of Artaxerxes II. (B.C. 404-359). But the narrative 
of Korah's rebellion, i.e. the later account of the 
Priests' Code abon t this rebel 1 ion ( see above, § 8 d enrf, 
and cf., further, below), can scarcely be separated 
from the Priests' Code of Ezra ( P-) and assigned to 
a later innovation ( P^) ; for then the law of Ezra 
would merely have contained a narrative giving 
expression to the priestly prerogatives of the whole 
tribe of Levi as against the rest of the congrega- 
tion. But this is not to be supposed, .seeing that 
the Priests' Code (P-) everywhere insists most dis- 
tinctly on the priestly rights of the Aaronites 
alone. This it does, in the opinion of the present 
writer, not in opposition to claims of non-Jem- 
salemite priests, which do not come into view with 
1*- at all, but rather — and -so also in the story of 
Korah — in opposition to pretensions put forward 
by the personnel at the Jerusalem temple who 
were not counted as belonging to the (Zadokite) 
priestly family. 

The duties of the Levites of the Priests' Coda 
and their relations to priests and people are so 
vaguely defined as to give rise to tlie impression 
that these ' Levites,' as servants of the priests, are 
simply an innovation of the legislator, not corre- 
sponding at all to the actually exist! ig relations. 
Ill other words, the legislator appears to havo 
written at a time when, in addition to a special 
priestly family, namely the Aaronites ot the 





Priests' Code, there was not a class, who from 
their descent might be called Levites, servin" as 
lower othcials at the sanctuary ; and the emmoy- 
nient of Lerites for this ollice appears to oe a 
matter of pure theory on the jiart of the le^'islator, 
whose system elsewhere also is based in large 
measure upon ideal construction. He appears to 
substitute the name ' Levites ' for the lower grade 
of sanctuary servants, singers, and doorkeepers. 
In the priestly system of the Priests' Code, so far 
as this has a real basis, the only parties in view 
would, in this way, be the personnel of the old 
Jerusalem temi)le — a circumstance most easily 
capable of explanation if this system took its rise 
at a time when one had no motive for taking into 
consideration the nou-Jerusalemite priests or their 

The Priest-s' Code is acquainted, on the other 
hand, with a class amongst the personnel of the 
sanctuary with wliich we meet nowhere in the 
post-e.\ilic period, namely the serving women (see 
above, § 8 e). These may be connected with tlie 
consecrated women, the kUdishoth of the ancient 
Can.'ianite sanctuaries, who in certain pre-exilic 
periods were found even in the Jerusalem temple 
(Gesfh. pp. 36 f., IT'Jf. ; cf. Ismar J. Peritz, 'Woman 
in the ancient Hebrew Cult,' in JBL, 1898, pt. ii. 
p. 14511'.), although a le'rislator of the Janweh 
religion could not think of women at the sanctuary 
serving the purpose of the Canaanite hieroclouloi, 
but only as employed in cleaning and such like. 
A later age did away with these serving women 
entirclj', as tending to recall the hieroclouloi, and 
as furnishing occ.ision for moral abuses. 

The designation chosen for priests in the Priests' 
Code, namely ' Aaronites,' appears to the present 
writer to point to the time before Josiah's reform, 
or at least before Ezekiel. Its result was that a 
priestly family returned with Ezra, which traced 
Its descent, not, like the Zadokites, to the family 
of Phinelias or Kleazar, but to that of Ithamar 
(Ezr 8* M), and thus did not belong to the old 
Jerusalem priesthood. The real existence of such 
non-Zadokite 'Aaronites' is also probable from 
other indications. As we found occasion to con- 
clude (.see above, § 3, cf. § 2) from the history of 
Eli's de.scenflant Ebi.athar, who was b.anished to 
Anathoth, and of the priests at Anathoth in 
Jeremiah's time, who probably traced back their 
de.scent to Ebiathar, the priesthood of Anathoth, 
in distinction from the house of Zadok, held itself 
to be derived from the ancient priestly family at 
the time of the Exodus, and perhaps from Aaron. 
Consequently, the enactment of the Priests' Code, 
that the sons of Aaron are all entitled to exercise 
the priestly office, was not, when the new com- 
munity was set up, litted to serve the special 
interest of the Zadokites, for it required these to 
treat even those priests who did not belong to 
their family as equally entitled to sacred functions 
with themselves. I^ow there can be no doubt 
that the author of the jiriestly legislation of the 
Priests' Code (P-) belonged to the priesthood of 
Jerusalem, for otherwise he could not be so familiar 
as he is with the of the one legal place of 
worship, the tabernacle, i.e. the antedated single 
temple. liut it ia extremely improbable that a 
Zaxlokite of the period after Ezekiel should, in 
divergence from this prophet, have conceded to 
non-Zadokite priests equal rights with the Zadok- 
ites. The substitution of the ancient Aaron for 
the relatively modern Zadok cannot be a mere 
play with names on the part of an exilic or post- 
exilic legisl.ator, for, as Ezr 8' shows, there were 
actually non • Zadokite ' Aaronites.' While the 
aiUurciits of the Graf hypothesis liml hitherto for 
the most part seen in the term ' Aaronites' simply 
an archaism for 'Zadokites,' Kuenen (ThT, IS'.M), 

p. 28 II'. ), latterly agreeing with Oort, the present 
writer, and Vogelstein, came to the conclusion we 
have reached. The connotation of the term ' Aaron- 
ites ' is — and this not merely in theory, but as 
applied in practice— even in the post-exilic period 
wider than that of 'Zadokites.' Kuenen, accord- 
ingly, following Oort and Vogelstein, held that a 
compromise took place between the Zadokites after 
Ezekiel's time and non-Zadokite priestly families, 
and that to this compromise the enactments of the 
Priests' Code owed their origin (so also SchUrer, 
p. 239, note 49; cf., for the .same explanation, as 
the lirst after Oort [1884], Stade, GV/ii., Berlin, 
1888, p. 104). But it is not at all likely that on 
the one hand Ezekiel's distinction between non- 
Zadokite Levites and Zadokites should have gained 
acceptance, as it undoubtedly did, to such an 
extent that a new cl.ass, 'the Levites,' was formed 
out of the former priests of the high places ; but 
that, on the other hand, this same distinction 
found so little acceptance that, in direct opposition 
to it, new regulations were introduced, by which 
non-Zadokites had to be admitted into the number 
of the priests. About the j'ear 572 Ezekiel had 
made the tirst attempt to have all non-Zadokite 
Levites declared to be sanctuary servants. A 
movement of non-Zadokite priestly families must, 
as Oort and his followers thiiiK, have formed 
itself in opposition to this ordinance, and must 
have been not without effect, so that, when Ezra 
returned in the year 4.58, Ezekiel's limitation of 
the priesthood was already forgotten so far that a, 
non-Zadokite family of priests joined Ezra, and no 
opposition was ollered to the recognition of their 
priestly rights. Of a decisive contest of the nou- 
Zadokite priestly families with tlie Zadokites in 
this matter, tradition shows no trace, and the 
development subsequently to Ezekiel's time is 
much more easily explained if tlie rule entitling 
all Aaronites to the priesthood was an older one, 
with which an adjustment had to be made. With 
what right the iiouse of Ithamar, which does 
not apjiear in the history prior to Ezr 8'- (M), was 
traced back to Aaron, as is done in the Priests' 
Code, it is impossible to s.ay (cf. Nowack, p. 105, 
note 2). But it is not likely that the connexion of 
Ithamar with Aaron was first put forward after the 
Ithamarites under Ezra had gained entrance to the 
priesthood, for in that case it would not be intelli- 
gible by what other title this entrance could have 
been gained by the Itliamarites in opposition to 
the Zadokites and to the statutes of Ezekiel. See- 
ing that the family of Eli in any, even in 
pre-exilic times (in view of 1 S 2*', and probably 
also I K 2-'', the oracle of 1 S 2-'"''- cannot be exilic 
or post-exilic), traced back (1 S 2-'"-) to the priest 
of the Exodus (who is not, indeed, named), the 
assumption is, to say the least, not improb.iblo 
that even in pre-exilic times there were non- 
Zadokite priests who traced their descent to Aaron 
as the priest of the Exodus. The very same con- 
clusion results from the account in the Jehovistic 
book of Aaron's part in the worsliij) of the golden 
calf, for he is thus presented as the tj-jie, nay 
probably also as the ancestor, of the priests of the 
Northern kingdom. If from pre-exilic times there 
were 'Aaronites' who did not belong to the house 
of Zadok, the fact that the name ' Aaron ' or ' sons 
of Aaron ' is employed by a legislator belonging '.o 
the priesthood of tlie only legitimate sanctuary, 
the temi)le of Jerusalem, for this very priesthood, 
appears to the present writer to he intcltigililo only 
at a time when the participation of non-Jeru- 
salemite 'Aaronites' in the temple cultus did not 
form the subject of question, because at that time 
they did not desire such participation, i.e. at a 
time when, besides the ti.Miiple at Jerusalem, tlicre 
were other sanctuaries at which they could dis- 




charge priestly service — in other words, before 
Josiali's reform. 

The Priests' Code appears to the present writer 
to betray quite clearly the circumstaiu-e that, at 
the time when it was written, all Aaronites did not 
de facto enjoy priestly riglits, but only that branch 
to which (so Ezr 7'*) the Zadokites were reckoned, 
namely the branch of I'hinehas (cf. Ezr 8- M). In 
Nu 25'-'- it is only to Phinehas, of all the Aaronites, 
that an everlasting priesthood is promised. And 
yet Ezra had to admit priests who were not 
reckoned to the house of PIiineha.s. This appears 
to us to be e-xjilicable only on the sup])usition that saying about the everlasting priesthood of 
Phinehas alone belongs to a dillerent age from 
that of Ezra. This cannot be the age after Ezra, 
for the nonZadokite Ithamarites who under him 
were admitted to the priesthood at Jerusalem were 
not afterwards removed from this ottiee (Gesch. p. 
139). No <loubt the Zadokite-s, as is shown by the 
term Sadducces derived from their family name, 
formed still later a special priestly aristocracy^ ; but 
this does not authorize our taking, with Kuenen 
(ThT, 1890, p. 37), the promise of an everlasting 
priesthood to Phinehas alone, as a later inter])ola- 
tion, for the everlasting priesthood was from the 
time of Ezra not an exclusive characteristic of 
Phinehas, i.e. of the Zadokites. 

In the narrative of the Priests' Code regarding 
the destruction of two of Aaron's sons, Nadab and 
Abihu, without issue (Lv 10'"', Nu 3* 26«', cf. Lv 
16'), we should apparently find either a reminiscence 
of priestly families that actually died out (so, fanci- 
fully, Ad. Moses, Nadab und Abihu oder der 
Untergang dcr Saulidcn und dcs grosstcn Theils 
des Stammes Benjamin, Berlin, 1890: Nadab = 
Abinadab, 1 S 7' ; Abihu = Abiel, 1 S 9'), or even a 
polemic against the claim of certain families to 
belong to ' Aaron.' If the latter is the case, the 
genuineness of the genealogy of these families, 
which went back to Kadab and Abihu, would be 
denied, since these sons of Aaron perished with- 
out leavin" any issue behind them. It is impos- 
sible to find in the narrative of their fate any indica- 
tion of conditions pointing to a particular period of 
time, unless we are to hold, with Oort (p. 331), 
that the 'strange fire' which Nadab and Abihu 
brought ' before Jahweh ' has reference to their 
participation in bam6th worship. The eflect of 
tills would be that in this narrative the Aaronite 
families Nadab and Abihu would stand for the 
noa-Jenisalemite priests (as ' Aaron ' stands else- 
where for the priests of the bull-worship) who 
were displaced by Aaron's son Eleazar, whom the 
Zadokites regarded as their ancestor. Such an in- 
terpretation, however, is not very probable, for the 
'strange fire' is at least offered to Jahweh, which 
appears to presuppose that it is offered at the legal 
sanctuary and not in the high places (see, further, 
art. Nadab). 

The designation of the priests as ' Aaronites ' 
does not belong to the oldest strata of the Priests' 
Code, even apart from the Law of Holiness and the 
tOrOth akin to it. In a version of the story of 
Korah which has been worked over, and wlii<h 
does not belong to the Jehovistic book but to the 
Priests' Code, Korah is regarded as the champion 
of the congregation against Moses and Aaron 
(Nu 16'), i.e. the Levites. Here the Levites as a 
body are thought of as priests, just as in the 
narrative of the rod that blossomed (Nu n'"") 
Aaron is the representative of the tribe of Levi, 
which in its totality is thought of a-s invested with 
priestly prerogatives. In ojiposition to this older 
conception of the Levites as priests, the main 
body (P*) of the Priests' Code seeks to establish 
the exclusive right of the Aaronites, i.e., in the 
\ lew of the legislator, the Jerusalem priesthood. 

A different procedure, again, is followed by a 
recent addition to the legislation, which seeks to 
present the Levites as more like the priests. We 
refer to what e\idently was never carried into 
actual practice, the consecration of the Levites 
(Nu S""-), which is intended to be an analogue to 
the consecration of the priests. This representa- 
tion, which shows a higher estimate of the Levites, 
will belong to the exilic or post-exilic period (P^), 
when by ' Levites' were understood the families of 
the former priests of the high places, and it was 
desired to gi\e to these a priest-like rank cone- 
sjionding to their pretensions. 

Among the later elements of the Priests' Code 
would have to be reckoned also the description of 
the V estments of the high priest, if we are to see 
in the latter an investiture with the insignia of 
royalty, of which, of course, there could be no 
word before the post-monarchical period, when 
the high priest was the only visible head of Israel. 
But the purple in the high priest's robe can hardly 
be the symbol of royalty ; the principal colour of 
the high priest's garments is not red- but blue- 
purple. The diadem, to be sure, is a sign of princely 
rank, but ' holy princes ' (sarim) appear already in 
the exilic ' Isaiah' (43^), surely not as a new crea- 
tion of the Exile. The chief priest of royal Tyre 
assumed a very high dignity as ' next after the 
king' (Movers, Die Phimizier, II. i. 1849, p. 542 tt.). 
The circumstance that the high priest of the 
Priests' Code bears, as the most important item ia 
his attire, the Urim and Tliummim, is not favour- 
able to an exilic or post-exilic date for the com- 
position of the passage embodying this view, for 
the post-exilic period had no Urim and Thummim 
(Nell 7°°). The priests in old Israel were in posses- 
sion of them prior to the overthrow of the Northern 
kingdom (Dt 33"). Perhaps these insignia, and 
probably also the sacred ark, were lost when the 
temple was destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar. Tliat 
the author of the Priests' Code had before his 
mind's eye the post-exUic high priest as also the 
secular head of the community, does not follow 
from Nu 27" (Benzinger, p. 423), where it is said 
that Joshua and all the children of Israel and the 
whole congregation are ' to go out and come in at 
the word of Eleazar.' Eleazar gives this direction 
on the ground of the Urim and Thummim, that 
is, God issues His commands through him. No 
other means of ascertaining the will of God was 
open to the congregation after the death of Moses; 
there is no thought here of a ruling position occu- 
pied by the high priest himself, least of all of the 
position of the post-exilic high priest who had 
not the Urim and Thummim at all. The circum- 
stance that in Nu 34" and Jos 14' the priest 
Eleazar is mentioned lirst, before Joshua, among 
the heads of the people, is due to the fact that 
Eleazar, as Aaron's son, stands in a closer relation 
to Moses, the former leader of the people, than 
does' servant Joshua or any of the othe 
then princes of the people (on the relation betweci 
the high priest in P and in the post-exilic period, 
cf. Van floonacker, Saccrdoce, etc. p. 324 II. ). 

It is scarcely possible to arrive at a definite date 
for the various strata of the priestly sj-stem in the 
Priests' Code, and thus for tne Priests' Code as a 
whole. The probable conclusion from the prece<I- 
ing considerations, if these are justified, — differing 
from what is reached on the view of the case 
adopted by the majority of modem critics, — would 
be that tlie "iiain stock of the Priests' Code (P^) 
is prior to Ezekiel, and, in that case, belongs 
probably even to the period preceding Josiah s 
reform of the cultus. The programme of Ezekiel, 
which in one wa}' or other is of decisive im- 
portance for the dating of the Priests' Code, 
appears to the present writer to be intelligible, 




if the prophet considers an older cultus-legislation 
to ha\e Deen abolislied with the overtlirow of 
the ancient temple, and if he substitutes a new 
s}-steni for use in his new temple. But it appears 
dilliiult to comprehend how a legislator posterior 
to Kzokiel should have displaced the law of the 
propliet written down for the new Israel by a lej,'is- 
lative scheme of his own. On the other hand, 
n^'ain, it is readily intellipble that through the 
impulse of the law of Ezekiel, and owing to the 
new conditions and the new conceptions that grew 
up during the El.\ile, expansions and modilications 
should have been made by exilic priests u|ion an 
ancient law, in order to fit it for application to the 
new community. The form of the Bk. of Ezekiel, 
apparently intermediate between Deuteronomy and 
tlie Priests' Code, is more simplj' explained if 
Ezekiel is dependent, not only, as he clearly is, 
upon Deuteronomy and Jeremiah, but also upon 
an older code emanating from the Jerusalem 

Sriesthood, tlian if he makes an original start in 
ealing with the cultus. The same remark applies 
to his language, which on the one hand recalls 
Deuteronomy and Jeremiah, and on the other 
hand the Priests' Code. 

The ditl'erent views held as to the date of the 
system of the Priests' Code do not afl'ect 
the actual history of the priesthood itself except 
on a few points, as, for instance, in the view whicli 
is to be taken of the position of the chief priest 
prior to the time of Ezekiel, if the Code is to be 
placed thus early. This is owing to the fact that 
the organization of the priesthood in the Priests' 
Code 13 of a theoretical character, for as a whole 
it does not fit the real conditions of any period 
whatever. Of much more importance is the ques- 
tion of the date of the Priests Code for the history 
of sacrifice. 

But, whatever date may be fixed for the redac- 
tion of the system of this legislation, it will not be 
possible to avoid the conclusion that the whole 
body of ritual set up in it could not have taken 
its rise in its special form — i.e. in its deviation 
from Dt and Ezk — during the relatively short 
period between Ezekiel (B.C. 572) and Ezra (B.C. 
458), namely some 110 years, but that it represents 
a long development of cultus-practice as well as 
cultus-language. The beginnings of this de\ elon- 
nieut go back in any case to the pre-exilic period, 
and are not unintelligible there, wlien we consider, 
what to the mind of the present writer is dear, 
tliat the Deuteronomic law did not emanate from 
the priesthood at Jerusalem, in which case no 
specimen of the cultus-language and cultus-practice 
of this priesthood prior to Ezekiel lia-s been pre- 
served outside the Priests' Code, and when we 
note, further, that Jeremiah (8") is acquainted 
with a literary actinty exercised in the way of 
giving form to the t6rah, an activity of which he 
disapproves, and whicli therefore cannot be taken 
to reler to the codifying of the Deuteronomic law, 
with which the prophet undeniably syinpatliizcd. 
AVhat incurs hLs disapproval can scarcely be any- 
thing else than the resolving of God's will, wliich 
lie interprets ethicallj' ("-'■), into ritual dcmamls. 
Here, then, in Jeremiah we find pretty clear traces 
of a priestly literary activity answering to the rise 
of the Priests' Code. Those literary productions, 
however, as may be gathered from the same refer- 
ence in Jeremiah, have not yet gained the iiosition 
of a generally accepted ceremonial law. Even the 
Deuteronomic law betrays no acquaintance with 
this, but knows only of some particular tOrCih 
for the priests (Dt 24'), which may afterwards have 
been taken over by the Priests' Code (see above, 
§ 8 a). On the other hand, a point which cannot 
be more fully discussed here, the redaction of 
the Deuteronomic law and the position it assigns to 

this as a farewell address of Moses, presujjposes an 
acquaintance with the Priests' Code, and an accept- 
ance of it as the law proper, of which Dt is meant 
to appear as a recapitulation. The redaction of 
Dt is, in view of its relations to the Deuteronomic 
law, not to be placed at a very great distance frou 
the latter ; it cannot belong to so late a period as 
the rise of the new post-exilic coniniunlly. 

If the sj'stem of the Priestly Writing is earlier 
than the Exile, and thus probably prior to Josiah's 
reform, it can have originated at such a time jmrely 
as an ideal picture sketched by a Jeru.'^.ilcm i)riest, 
and not, or at least only very partially, as a de- 
scription of the actually existing state of things. 
At whatever time the I'riests' Code was written, 
the first unmistakable trace which at the same 
time is capable of being dated with certainty, of 
the influence of the system embodied in it, is to be 
found in the place given to the high priest in 
Zechariah, and the first evidence of its close is 
found in tlie reading aloud of the law in the time 
of Ezra. 

9. The Priesthood fuom Ezra to the 
Chronicler.— After the Pentateuch had, under 
Ezra, obtained recognition as the lawbook, we 
find, as could not but have been expected, that 
the relations of the sanctuary servants were 
moulded according to the finished system set forth 
in the Priests' Code. The Deuteronomic views of 
these relations, not being rounded off into one 
well - compacted whole, must give place to this 

Thus, \vith the author of the chronicle written 
between B.C. 300 and 200, i.e. in the Books of 
Chronicles and in the redaction by his hand of the 
Books of Ezra and Neheniiah, we lind the relations 
of the personnel of the sanctuary, as these had 
existed in the time of Ezra and Isehcmiah, modi- 
fied in various points, in order to bring them more 
into harmony with the requirements of the Priests' 
Code. The Chronicler tran-^fers the relations ex- 
isting in his own time without distinction to 
earlier times, as if everything had been in force 
in the same way from the time of David down- 
wards. It is possible, indeed, that his descrip- 
tions do not in every single point correspond to the 
actual conditions of his own daj'. It cannot, 
however, be inferred from this, with Van Hoon- 
acker, that the Chronicler portraj's the i)re-exilic 
conditions as these really existed, for this con- 
clusion is opposed by all that we know from 
earlier writings. The Chronicler may be assumed 
to have used for the pre-exilic historj-, at least 
indirectly if not directly, ancient sources that have 
not come down to us, but for his account of the 
condition of the priesthood prior to the Exile ho 
certainly had no such sources at his disposal. 
Wherever this account exhibits a deviation from 
the conditions after the Exile, the Chronicler 
evidently puts forward, as a rule, not something 
corresponding to any actual state of things, but 
only what appeared to him desirable. His de- 
scriptions tend to glorify the Levites, to whom he 
everywhere shows regard even more than to the 
priests. Piobaldy he was himself a Levite, and, 
in view of his special interest in the tcniiilc singers, 
ho may have belonged to this group of tlie Levites. 

The Chronicler is accjuaintcd with 24 divisions 
or families of priests, which, after his manner, 
he carries back to the time of David (1 Ch 
24™). Since in the list of these divisions, as it 
lies before us, the first place is occupied by the 
family of Joiarib, from which the Hasmono^ans 
sprang, it may perhaps be inferred that this list 
was first drawn up in the Hasmomcan period 
(Schiirer, p. 237, note 44). These 24 juiestly 
families are referred to, in some instances clearly, 
in others at least to all appearance, by the 




terms mahUMth, • divisions' (1 Ch 24' 28i>- ", 2 Ch 
8" [-238?] 31""'); blth 'abSth, 'fathers' houses' 
(1 Ch 24''- ' al.) ; and mishmarutk, ' watches ' (2 Ch 
31'"), tliis last occurring already in Nehemiah 
(13*' M). According to the Rabbinic tradition, 
the 24 classes, with which Josephus {Ant. VII. 
xiv. 7 ; Vita, 1) is acquainted as still existing in 
his time, are lield to have been in existence from 
the time of the Exile (Schurer, p. 232 f.). Tliis 
cannot be quite correct. The list in Neh V"' 
names only four priestly families (cf. Ezr 10'*"--), 
and two returned with Ezra (Ezr 8' M). But 
Neh 12'-'' mentions, for the time of Zerubbabel 
and Joshua, 22 divisions of priests, and the 
same, with one omission, are given in Neh 12'^'^' 
for the time of Joiakim the son of Joshua. 
Neh lO'-*, on the other hand, names 21 divi- 
sions, in which, indeed, the names show changes 
(cf. Ed. Meyer, p. 168 tf.). Those four families in 
Neh 7 should therefore probably be thought of as 
falling into subdivisions. The two groups that 
returned with Ezra do not necessarily represent 
other two families besides those four ; tney are 
representatives of the two great branches into 
which, according to the Priests' Code, the whole 
body of priests falls, namely Phinehas (or Eleazar) 
and Ithamar, i.e. Zadokites and non-Zadokites. 
The heads of the 21 to 24 divisions are spoken of 
as ra'shim of fathers' houses (Neh 12>2, 1 Ch 24^«), 
with whom we should probably identify the priest- 
princes [sdrim) of Ezr 8=<- ^ M, 10», 2 Ch 36'*. 

The Chronicler divides the singers likewise 
into 24 classes (1 Ch 25), and appears to have 
designed to give in like manner, for the Levites in 
general, a list of 24 classes, which has certainly 
not reached us in a correct form in the present 
text of 1 Ch 23'-^. Since the division of the 
Levites into 24 classes is witnessed to in the period 
posterior to the OT (Jos. Ant. VII. xiv. 7 ; cf. 
Schiirer, p. 242, and, on the other side, Van Hoon- 
acker, Sacerdoce, etc. p. 41 tt'.), these statements 
of the Chronicler are probably due to the circum- 
stance that with him the classes of singers and 
Levites are practically identical (see below, § 10). 
Di\-isions of the Levites, without specification of 
the number of these, are presupposed by the 
Chronicler in various ways (mahUkuth, 1 Ch 28"- ^' 
al. ; mifhmdrOth of the Levites [singers] and 
mammh of the doorkeepers, 2 Ch 8" ; [bUh'i 
'abOth of the Levites, 1 Cli 9** al.), and even 
Nehemiah (IS*' M) speaks of mishmdrith of the 
Levites. The heads of the divisions of the Levites, 
like those of the priests, are called by the Chronicler 
sdrtm (Ezr 10», 1 Ch IS"'- al.) or ra'shim (Neh 
12*"-, 1 Ch 9^'- [of the singers and doorkeepers, 
yy 14-32] (j; ) Xn the Priests' Code nasi' is the 
designation of the heads of the Levitical fathers' 
houses (Nu 3°^"-), along with wliicli we find ra'shim 
used of the heads of the whole tribe of Levi (Ex 

In the position of the high priest no essential 
change can be traced since the time of Ezra. The 
very first of the post-exilic high priests assumed 
the place claimea for liim in the Priests' Code. 
Nehemiah (3'- *• M, 13^ M) and the Clironicler 
give to the high priest the title of ha-kohen ha- 
gadul (2 Ch 34"), the Chronicler has also the older 
title [ha-'\ kohcn hn-ro'sh (Ezr 7», 2 Ch 19" a/.). 
In addition, the Clironicler employs the designa- 
tion, not found in the Pentateuch, ' prince [nagitl] 
of the house of God' (1 Ch 9" al.; cf. 'prince of 
Aaron,' 1 Ch 27'°'), which marks the later time 
when the high priest was at the same time the 
head of the political community. Usually, how- 
ever, the Chronicler (1 Ch 16*'), as well as Nehe- 
miah (Neh 13* M), calls the high priest simply 
' the priest,' as is likewise done frequently in the 
Priests' Code. 

By the Chronicler, as in the Priests' Code, the 
priests recognized are tlie Aaronites, including; both 
the Eleazarites and the Ithamarites (1 Ch 24™- al.). 
The equalizing of the latter with the Zadokites 
{i.e. Eleazarites), which as a necessary concession 
to the system of the Priests' Code appears to have 
been first recognized under Ezra (Ezr 8^ il), has 
thus become permanent. 

A ditlerence, as compared with the conditions in 
the time of Ezra, reveals itself with the Clironicler 
only in regard to the inferior personnel of the 
temple, and in some points concerning the relatioE 
of tliis to the priests. A distinction between 
Levites on the one hand and singers and door- 
keepers on the other, such as we noted (see above, 
§ 7) in the time of Ezra, is no longer made. The 
written source in which the Chronicler would 
appear to have found at the same time the 
Memoirs of Ezra and those of Nehemiah, appears 
to have still made this distinction, seeing that 
even outside the Memoir passages in the Bks. of 
Ezr and Neh the singers are only very occasionallj', 
and the doorkeepers not at all, reckoned to one 
comprehensive class, the Levites {Gesch. p. 143 f.). 
On the other hand, for the Chronicler singers and 
doorkeepers are subdivisions of the one class, the 
Levites (1 Ch G'S"- [note v.^-] 9=" al., see Gesch. 
p. 151 fl.). C. C. Ton-ey (The Cotnposiiion and 
Historical Value of Ezya-Nehcmiah, Giessen, 1896, 
p. 22 f.) is decidedly wrong when he denies the 
existence of a dilierence in this respect between 
the Chronicler and the older portions of the Bks. 
of Ezi-a and Nehemiah (see above, § 7). Still less, 
in view of the material evidence tliat exists, can it 
be held, with Koberle and Van Hoonacker {Sater- 
dace, etc. p. 49, cf. 70), that the reckoning of the 
singers and doorkeepers to the Levites, as we find 
done by the Chronic-ler in the Bks. of Chronicles 
themselves and in his working over of the sources 
of Ezr and Neh, is presupposed by Ezra and Nehe- 
miah as existin", and rests even upon a pre-exilic 
application of the name ' Levites ' to those classes 
of sanctuary servants. On the contrary, the 
application of the name 'Levite' even to the 
smgers and doorkeepers is plainly introduced 
through the influence of the Priests Code, which 
knows of only the one class besides the priests, 
namely the Levites. The Nethinim, who under 
Ezra were received into tlie community (Neh 10-'), 
appear to have disappeared at the time of the 
Clironicler, who mentions them only once, namely 
at the time of the founding of the first post-exilic 
community (1 Ch 9-). \\'hetlier they were re- 
moved from the service of the sanctuary or by 
a genealogical device were absorbed among the 
Levites can scarcely be determined, but even here 
the influence of the Priests' Coile is unmistakable. 

For the priests tlie Chronicler sometimes uses 
the expression, which is somewhat strange for him, 
ha-kohdnim ha-lcwiyyim. It is not, indeed, quite 
certain that he actually uses it, for the copulative 
waw may easily have dropped out between the two 
appellations just quoted, and the readings of the 
M.SS vacillate (Gesch. p. 15411'.). But there is an 
a priori probability in favour of the reading with- 
out VMW, for this form of expression is just what 
does not correspond with the ordinary usage of 
later times, and in any case in 2 Ch 3^, where it 
is said of the ' Levite priests ' that they blessed 
the people, this reading is undoubtedly correct, 
since blessing is the function of the priests ex- 
clusively. In this instance, by way of exception, 
the terminology of Dt has again forced itself to 
the front, aa in like manner the desijjnation 
' Levites ' is also occasionally still used Iby the 
Chronicler in a -nnder sense so as to include tlia 
priests (Gesch. p. 136). In the employment of the 
title ' Levite priests ' we may find an approxima- 




tion of the position of the Levites to tliut of the 
priests, whicli would liave to be viewed iis a con- 
cession to tlie pretensions of those whom Ezekiel 
and Ezra called Levites, namely the descendants 
of the deposed priests of the high places. 

Snch a raisin" of the dignity of the Levites 
Would not be witliout analo^es in Chronicles. In 
point of fact they have in these books a more 
iiriest-like standing. This is shown, in particular, 
1)V the -services they have to render at the ollering 
ol the burnt-oU'ering on the Sabbaths, and at the 
new moons and gieat festivals (1 Ch 23^'), and by 
their (in an exceptional way) helping the priests to 
Hay the victims on the occasion of extraordinary 
oMerings for the whole people (2 Ch 29**). From the 
latter passage it may be inferred that the service 
of the Levites at the ottering of the burntotlering 
also on holy days consisted in the Haying, and, it 
may be, in accordance with Ezekiel's enactment, 
the slaying of the victims. At all events, in 
Chronicles it is the Levites who undertake the 
killing and flayin" of tlie Paschal lambs, h.and to 
tlie priests the blood for sprinklinj; (2 Ch Su'""- 
35«. lui.)^ ,^[,j attend to the roasting of the Paschal 
ottering (2 Ch .S5'^') ; whereas in the Priests' Code 
it is the head of the house who kills and roasts the 
Paschal lamb (E.x I2«f- ; Gesch. p. 163). On the 
other hand, in 2 Ch 29=2- « it is the priests who slay 
the sacriUces, probably because we nave here to do 
with e.xtraordinary sacrilices for the whole people. 
By tlie ' Kohathite Levites' who prepare the shew- 
bread (1 Ch 9^-), the Chronicler appears to mean 
not the Aaronites (who, to be sure, belonged to the 
Kohathites), to whom alone that duty falls in the 
Priests' Code (but cf. Gesch. p. 161 f.). While, 
further, in the Priests' Code the duty of teadiing 
belongs only to the priests, this duty, particularly 
that of instructing in the tordh, is assigned in 
Neh 8'-» (cf. v."), 2 Ch 17»'- 35' also to the Levites 
{Gesch. p. 163f.). The more priest-like jjosition of 
• he Levites ttnds quite peculiar expression in the 
tact that in Chronicles not only the priests, as in 
the Priests' Code, but also the Levites are called 
holy (2 Ch 23" 35'; cf., further, Ezr 8-» M, where 
already the Levites seem to be included [with the 
priests] in the ' Ye are holy to Jahweh '). 

Rcgardin" the serWce of the doorkeepers in par- 
ticular, we learn that they had daily to set in all 
24 watches, under four chiefs belonging to the 
doorkeepers, at the four quarters of the temple 
(ICh 26'-"") — an arrangement which, although 
given as existing in the time of TXivid, will really 
have reference to the temple of Zeruhbabel. As 
concerns thevinjrfr.v, HuchleriJ^T^JIF, lS9!t, p. 97 H.) 
s.eks to prove that tlie data regarding teiiijile 
music and tenii)le singing were not found in the 
authority u.sed by tlie Chronicler, and are thus 
added by himself. This is not impossible; but so 
sharp a distinction between the Chronicler and his 
authority (the lost on Kings), with which 
we are wholl}' unacquainted, ajipears to the present 
writer incapable of being carried out. 

There is, moreover, an 'external activitT,' i.e. 
one outside the sanctuary, assigned to the Levites 
in Chronicles (1 Ch 26™). They are employed as 
over.-teers and, like the priests, as judges (1 Ch 23* 
26^«/. ). In particular, their charge of measures 
is referred to in 1 Ch 2:^'^" {Gesch. j). 162). While 
the Priests' Code fixes the commencement of the 
Leiites' service at their thirtieth, or, according 
to an innovation, their twenty-lifth year, they 
have, according to 1 Ch 2.T-""' and other passages, 
to serve from their twentieth year <inward8 — an 
arrangement which the Chronicler is aware is a 
deviation from the legal statute, and which he 
geeks to justify as a change made by David. 

In the matter of the revenues falling to the 
priests and Levites, from the time of Ezra an 

attempt was made to carrj'out the pre.scri])tiinis of 
the Priests' Code. P.ut the setting-up of Levitical 
cities was as little carried into practice after Ezra 
as it had been up till then. When the Chronicler 
represents these cities as having existed in the 
time of Da^nd (1 Ch 13°) and later, this is simply 
due to his theory, which he forgets in 2 Ch 23-, 
where the Levites, at the accession of Joash, are 
assembled out of all the cities of Judah. Nor is 
the meaning of the 7»i;jr('ish of the Levitical cities 
quite clear to the Chronicler (2 Ch 31'"). Accord- 
ing to Neh 7"= Ezr 2™, and other passages, in the 
post-exilic period priests, Levites, singers, door- 
keepers, and Nethinim dwelt dispersed in various 
localities, which did not, however, bear the char- 
acter of the Levitical cities of the Priests' Code. 
So also in the period subsequent to the OT, the 
priests did not all live at Jerusalem : the Maccabees 
came from Modein (1 Mac 2'), to which, indeed, 
they had retired from Jerusalem only in conse- 
quence of the troubles under Antiochus Epiphanes ; 
and the priest Zacharias (Lk P'-"-) had his home in 
the hill-country of Judah (cf. Biichler, Pricater, 
pp. 1,59-205: 'Die Priester ausserhalb Jeru- 
salem's'). The doorkeepers, according to 1 Ch 9-°, 
betook themselves every seven days, according to 
their divisions, from their villages to Jerusalem to 
perform their service. The Levites and singer? 
(and so, no doubt, the priests also) in Neheniiah's 
time possessed at their places of residence fields, 
from whose produce they supported themselves 
when their dues were not paid (Neh 13'" M), and 
probably in general when thej' were not on duty, 
for the tenth in the time of Nehemiah was paid at 
the temple (Neh 13'- '='• M), and thus will hardly 
have extended to the LeWtes and priests outside 
Jerusalem. The Nethinim lived in Neheniiah's 
time on the Ophf.i, (which see) at Jerusalem (Neh 
3^1.31 M). ^i,g (ofhciating) luiests had houses in 
Jerusal(Mn, situated apparently on the temple area 
(Neh3-'^M). _ 

On the subject of the dues falling to the temple 
personnel, we have a certain anumnt of informa- 
tion for the time of Nehemiah. The Latter tells us 
in his Memoirs (Neh 13'') that before his departure 
from Jerusalem the tenth of corn, must, and oil 
w;is paid and deposited in the storehouses as tha 
portion of the Levites, temple-singers, and door- 
keepers, which three classes received the tenth, 
and the priest the tSrnmdh. The tiiri'tmdh here 
might possibly mean the tenth of the tenth, but 
linguistic usage favours rather our referring it to 
tlie handing over of the first-fruits. In case 
the [laying of the tenth of the tenth to the prie^t^ 
is not witnessed to for the time of Nelieniiah. 
The tenth of the tenth in Neh lO*'-'"' owes its 
presence apparently to a later hand { p. 
171 f.), to which is due also the additional enact- 
ment, which perhaps suits even tlie time of 
Nehemiah, but in any case is cliaracteristic of the 
later develojuiient, that an Aaroiiite iiriest is to 
superintend the operations of the Levites, as they 
receive the tithes (v.'"'). After a while remissness 
in paying the tithes set in, so that Nehemiah at 
his second visit had to adopt drastic measures in 
order to bring the payment of them into force 
again (Neh 13'""- M). There is no mention in 
Nehemiah of the tenth of cattle. The demand for 
this made by the Priests' Coile is probably an 
innovation, the result of i)Uiely theoretical con- 
struction, and is perhaps not earlier than the 
period subsequent to Nehemiah. The Clironi<lcr, 
on the other hand, is acquainted with the reciuire- 
ment of the tenth of cattle (2 Ch 31«). Priests and 
Levites were ajipointed by Nehemiah to take 
charge of the wood that had to he delivered at 
fixed times, and of the lii/c/ciirim (Neh 13»"'- M). 
According to Neh 1(P those contributions of wood 





for the requirements of the altar of burnt-offering 
were imposed upon the priests, the Levites, and the 
people— a prescription whipli is not contained in 
the Pentateuch, although tliis passa^'e in Nchemiah 
api)cals to the Torah (but c{. Lv 6"). 

The Clironider or liis predecessor in tlie redac- 
tion of the Memoirs of Neheniinh had no longer 
a clear understanding of the whole of the regula- 
tions respecting dues. It is impossible to gain a 
distinct view from the confused picture he draws 
{Ge.-<ch. p. 169 ff.). Only in Chronicles is there any 
allusion to a tenth of honey (2 Ch 31') ; the tenth 
of dedicated gifts which is likewise mentioned (v."), 
rests upon a confusion of the tenth with the 
teritmdh. The various kinds of dues are most 
concisely enumerated in Neli 12*', a passage re- 
garding which it is doubtful whether it belongs 
to the Memoirs of Nehemiah. Three species are 
named in it : tSrumuth, re'shith, and tenth. On 
this is based the Talmudic distinction of three 
kinds of dues, which finds no direct support in the 

10. The Priesthood after OT Times.— Several 
further developments in the relations of the per- 
sonnel of the sanctuary still show themselves in 
the period subsequent to the OT. 

a. Priestt! and Levites. — The consequence of the 
inclusion of the singers and doorkeepers among 
the Levites was that these two classes, which at 
the time of Ezra and Nehemiah were much more 
numerous than the Levites so-called in the narrower 
sense, dispossessed these of their unique character. 
At least the tendency to this result is already dis- 
coverable in the OT in Chronicles, where singers 
and doorkeepers play a more important part than 
the Levites so-called in the narrower sense, so that 
one might be tempted to suggest that the latter 
had even for the Chronicler merely a theoretical 
existence (Vogelstein, pp. 30, 102 if.). It is doubt- 
ful whether in 1 Ch O""" other ' Levites' (w."- *«•) 
besides the doorkeepers (vv."- ^^) and the singers 
(v.^) are assumed to exist [Gesch. p. 157 f.). The 
Talmud at all events knows only two kinds of 
Levitical service, that of song and that of w^atching 
in the temple (cf. Maimonides, ap. Vogelstein, 
1>. 85; and, further, Blichler, Priester, p. 118 ti'., 
esp. 136 ff. ). This is a result that is not surprising 
in view of the origin of the Levites in the narrower 
sense. The ancient, i.e., as would appear, pre- 
e.\ilic (see above, § 3 end), classes of sanctuary 
servants included, besides the priests, only the 
singers and doorkeepers. The class known to 
Ezekiel and in the time of Kzra as ' Levites' was 
an artiKcial creation, which served only the purpose 
of disposing of the old non- Jerusalem ite priests. 
In so far as these were not, like the Ithamarites, 
admitted to the post-exilic priesthood, they received 
as 'Levites' an intermediate place, which is hard 
to deline, between the priests on the one liand and 
the singers and doorkeepers on the other. Thus 
it came about that at last the Levites /car' i^oxh" 
were absorbed in the singers and doorkeepers, who 
constituted the only two surviving professional 
classes of Levites. In this way the arrangement 
gained ground, which the author of the I'riests' 
Code, if we judged rightly, had in view. He 
thought of his Levites as singers (for he reckons to 
them the singer-family of the Korahites) and door- 
keepers (for he employs to describe their service 
the technical term ' keep '). Of any other kind of 
Levites he for his part seems to know notliing, 
and the close of the history of the Israelitish 
cultus personnel knows as little. 

In fi.\ing the position of the cultus personnel, a 
later age accepted on other points as well the 
simpler and more natural arrangement, and dis- 
regarded ordinances which had for some time 
enjoyed validity, thanks to an artificial theory or 

to historical confusion. The tenth as a sacred due 
is readily intelligible if it is either devoted to a 
sacrificial meal (as proposed in Dt), or even given 
to the priests, as representatives of the deity, but 
not when it falls to subordinate servants of the 
sanctuary. Tlie Priests' Code, which assigns it t« 
the Levites, shows by this very circumstance that 
the name ' Levites ' was originally a designation 
of the priests (Gesch. p. 52 f.). After the tithe 
regulation of the Priests' Code had lieen actually 
put in force under Neliemiah in later times, accord- 
ing to the testimonj' of Josephus [Ant. XX. viii. 8, 
ix. 2 ; Vita, 12, 15) and the Talmud (see the refer- 
ences in Graetz, M(jiint.':schrift, 1886, p. 97 ff.}, the 
tithes were withdrawn from the Levites and 
assigned exclusively to the priests (cf. Van Hoon- 
acker, Sacerdore, etc. p. 40). The Mishna [Maaser 
shcni, V. 6) appears, indeed, to assume as the correct 
practice that some receive the first tenth and others 
the tSrilinah of the tenth. The first class could be 
only the Levites (Schiirer, p. 258, note 44) ; but then 
this description, as it seems, would not correspond 
with the actually existing relations of later times. 
It is possible tliat, as Vogelstein (p. 72 ff.) holds, the 
tradition handed down in the Mishna, to the effect 
that the high priest Johanan abolished ' the prayer 
of thanksgiving and confession at the tithe, refers 
to the abolition of the paying of the tithe to the 
Levites, and that by this Johanan is to be under- 
stood the contemporary of the Persian satrap 
Bagoses (cf. above, § 8 g ; so also Van Hoonacker, 
Saccrdoce, etc. p. 401, who, according to his chrono- 
logical scheme [p. 60 f.], regards this Johanan as a 
contemporary of Ezra ; on the other hand, Biber- 
feld, p. 18, holds that the Johanan who abolished 
the tithe prayer was John Hyrcanus). Our earliest 
evidence that the priests received the tenth comes 
from a much later time. Josephus (I.e.) assumes 
it as a matter of right that the priests receive 
the tenth, and complains only that some priests 
take it by force. He is speaking of the time of 
Agrippa II. Since Josephus describes the priests 
as taking the tithe at the hands of the laity, 
he cannot have in view the tenth that had 
to be paid by the Levites to the priests. He 
appears thus to be quite unacquainted with the 
paying of the tenth to the Levites as a usual 
thing. From the fact that the Talmud looks ujion 
it as a punishment that the tithe was withdrawn 
from the Levites and paid to the jiriests instead, 
which was the custom after the destruction of the 
temple (Graetz, Monatssehrift, ISSO, p. 107 f.), it 
has been inferred by Graetz (I.e. p. 98 11'.) that the 
offence in view as punished maybe the presump- 
tion of the Levites, who — but only the temple 
singers — in the time of Agrip|ia II. succeeded in 
obtaining the right to wear the linen garment of 
the priests (see below). The historical motive fo"* 
deviating from the law cannot be determined, bu^ 
it is readily conceivable that any o]iportunity 
would be seized for altering the awkwardly com- 
plicated tithe law of the Priests' Code. 

Not only the tithe but other previous rights 
were withdrawn from the Levites. Th.ey were no 
longer trusted with the whole of the watch .•service 
of the temple, but had, according to the Mishna, 
to keep watch only on the outside at 21 points, 
whereas the three stations in the inner court were 
occupied by priests. The guard supplied by the 
Levites was under the control of a captain of the 
temple, i.e. a priest {.Middoth i. 1, 2). 

Seeing that the Nethinim, who apparently were 
no longer even in the time of the Chronicler 
employed as a special class for the service of 
the temple, although still mentioned at a latel 
period, are not mentioned in connexion with the 
temple service, the lower nercices must have been 
discharged by others. Pliilo assigns not only the 




watch service but also the cleaning of the temple 
to the yeuK6poi, i.e. the Lcvites ; for other duties, 
growing boys of the priests were employed (Schiirer, 
p. 279). In addition, we hear {Hukka iv. i ; 
Tamid v. 3) of 'attendants' (c';;n), without its 
being clear whether they were Lerites (so Biichler, 
Pricster, p. 149 ff.) or non-Levites that were thus 
employed. In any case the only class of Levites 
that could enter into consideration would be the 
doorkeepers, for t he singers were doubtless regarded 
as holding too di'^nified a position to have such a 
name a[>plied to tliem. 

Shortly before the destruction of the temple, the 
sinr/ers succeeded in obtaining from Agrippa II. 
and the Sanhedrin permission to wear the ' linen ' 
garment of the priests (Jos. Ant. XX. i.\. 6). The 
desire to do this was not new ; according to 1 Cli 
15-'', 2 Ch 5", in the time of David and Solomon 
not only the singers but the Levites in general 
wore the jiriestly Oyssus robe — a statement which 
sliows merely that at the time of the Chronicler 
this practice was an object of desire. Agrippa II. 
not only granted the desire of the singers, but 
allowed a portion of the Levites, by whom only 
doorkeepers can be meant, to learn tlie singing of 
hymns (Jos. I.e.), i.e. to hold an equal place with 
the division of singers. 

It is to the Levites apparently that we shotild 
refer the designation oi ypaiifiareU toP Upov, ' the 
teachers of the law of the teiii])le,' which occurs in 
the letter of Antiochus the Great, ap. Jos. Ant. 
XII. iii. 3. As these ipaixpjiTtU are named between 
the Updt and the lepoiZ-aXToi, they can liardly be 
other than Levites (Sam. Krauss, p. 675). The 
mention of them tallies with what we learn from 
Nell 8'"' about the instruction in the Torah whicli 
was given by the Levites. 

b. The revenue.1 of the priests and Levites. — The 
dties demanded for the priests by the Priests' Code 
were augmented by that imposed by Deuteronomy 
npon sheep's wool {Chtiltin \i. 1, 2). By combin- 
ing the requirements of Dt with those of the 
Priests' Code, the income of the priests was further 
augmented, inasmuch as those portions of the 
sacrilicial victims which, according to Dt, fell to 
the priests, had at a later period to be paid to 
them from all animals that might legitimately be 
oliered in sacrilice, even when these were slaugh- 
tered for a common use, namely the foreleg, the 
cheek, and the maw of cattle, sheep, and goats 
{Chtdlin X. 1 ; cf. Schiirer, p. 255). The bikkurim 
were more specilically defined as having to be [laid 
from seven sources, adopted from Dt 8", namely 
wheat, barley, grajies, ligs, pomegTanates, olives, 
and honey. According as the parties concerned 
resided near to or far from Jerusalem the bik- 
kiiriiii were to be handed over fresh or dried, and 
were to be brought in general processions to Jeru- 
salem (Scliiirer, p. 2-19). A distinction, based on 
Nell 12", was made between the bikkurim and the 
tirihiidh in the narrower sense, i.e. the due levied 
on the best not only of the above seven kinds but 
on all fruits of lield and tree. There was no fixed 
measure prescribed for these dues, but on an 
average tliey were to amount to ^ih of one's in- 
come. This tirunulh was to be eaten, accordinj; to 
Nu 18'2, by priests alone (Schiirer, p. 249 f.). The 
due to be presented of dough was also more specifi- 
cally defined, as well as the products of the ground 
which had to be regarded aa tithable (Schiirer, 
p. 250 tr.). 

According to the Mishna (Menahoth x. 4), a 
portion of the firstling sheaf that was waved by 
the priest before Jaliweh (l,v 2;i">') falls to the 
priest— an arrangement of which there is no indica- 
tion in t*ie OT. According to Josephus (-In*. IV. 
iv. 4), the redemjition mice for the vow of one's 
own {(erson is considered to belong to the priests, 

whereas in the Priests' Code (Lv 27) this is not 
expressly said, as it is in the case of the h(rem. 
Perhaps the statement of Josephus is inexact ; as a 
rule, at least the things vowed appear to have been 
used for general cultus purposes (Schiirer, 25()f.). 

In one point the practice of later times took a 
turn less favourable to the temple-servants than 
the IViests' Code had intended. Not only the so- 
called second tenth, i.e. tL • one which, upon the 
ground of the tithe regulations in Dt was levied 
besides the tithe of the Levites, but also the tithe 
of cattle, are required by the Rabbinical rules to be 
devoted to sacrilicial meals at Jerusalem. The 
latter thus did not fall, as is unquestionably tlie 
intention of the Priests' Code, to the Levites and 
priests (Schiirer, p. 251 f., note 22). 

Those dues of the priests which did not consist 
of portions of the offerings, and which were not 
therefore necessarily brought to Jeru.salem, were 
paid 'every^vhere where there was a priest,' i.e. on 
the spot to any priest who happened to be present, 
and this was enjoined to be continued even after 
the destruction of the temple (Schiirer, p. 257). 

c. The duties and offices of the priests. — The 
enactments concerning the priests were in later 
tinii;s simply made more precise, upon the basis of 
the Priests' Code ; for instance, tlie laws about their 
marriacie (Schiirer, p. 227 f.), and the requirements 
of freedom from bodily blemish (ib. p. 230f. ). It 
would appear that in later times it was, not indeed a 
law liut a custom that the principal priests ni.arrie'l 
only the daughters of priests (Biichler, Priester, 
p. 88 fl". ). A particular aqe for admittance to the 
priestly service was no more fixed in the period 
following the OT than is done by the Priests' Code 
in the case of the Aaronites ; but, as a matter of 
practice, those admitted required apparently to 
have passed their twentieth year (Schiirer, p. 231). 

Among the priestly duties, the bloirlyii/ of triim 
pets takes a wider scope than in the Priests' Code 
or the statements of the Chronicler, according to 
which this ceremony was practised only in war and 
at the regular festivals and on special festive occa 
sions. In later times it took jilace also in connexion 
with the sabbatical and daily oH'erings (.Jos. Ant. 

III. xii. 6), and to announce the beginning of the 
Sabbath from the battlements of the temple (BJ 

IV. ix. 12; cf. Schiirer, p. 278 f.). In addition tc 
the washing, required in the Priests' Code, of hands 
and feet in the urazen laver before performing the 
sacred office (on the mode of performing this wash- 
ing see Biichler, Prie.^tcr, p. 74, note 1), the priests 
had in later times to take a plunge-bath every 
morning before commencing the work of the day 
(Schiirer, p. 283). In the last days of the temple it 
wouM appear that the higher ranks of jiriests took 
no jiart in the work of sacrifice, with the excejition 
of the ollcrings presented by the high priest on the 
feast (lays, as this non-particii)ation in sacrilicial 
work is to all appearance to be assumed in the case 
of the priest Ilavius Josephus (Biichler, Prie«<er, 
p. 70 If.). 

The 24 divitions of priests, of which we know as 
early as Chronicles, served for the performance of 
the cultus to which they attended in turn. The 21 
divisions are distinguished, in the literature pos- 
terior to the OT, as the mis/imdri'th, from the sub- 
divisions not mentioned in the OT, the btlttU'dbCth. 
Each principal division included, accoriling to tra- 
dition, from five to nine subdivisions (Schiirer, p. 
235 f.). A principal division is called in Greek irarpio 
(Jos. Ant. VII. xiv. 7), or i<prifj.epla (Lk 1'- ■•>. or 
iip-nnepls (Jos. Vita, 1); a sulidivision, 0kXt) (Jos. 
]'ita, 1). I'2ach of the 24 divisions went on duty 
for a week, the exchange with the next division 
taking place on the Sabbath. At the throe great 
annual festivals all the 24 divisions olliciated simul- 
taneously (Schiirer, p. 279 f.). 




The position of the high priest undenvent a 
change towards the close of the Jewish hierareliy 
through respect being no longer paid to the office 
as one that was to he held for life and to he lieredi- 
tary. The elevation of the Hasmona'ans to the 
high-priestly dignity had already marked a break- 
ing \vith tne past, for thereby the hereditary 
succession of high priests was interrupted. The 
Hasnionaeans sprang from the priestly class of 
Joiarib (1 Mac 2' 14="). Whether the latter was 
reckoned to the Zadokites or not, cannot be deter- 
mined. In the lists contained in the Book of 
Nehemiah (12^"'-'="") it holds a subordinate posi- 
tion ; a list, perhaps not earlier than the time of 
the Hasmonajans (cf. above, § 9), found in 1 Ch 
24"-, assigns to it the first place. In one of the 
recently discovered fragments of the Hebrew 
original text of Jesus Sirach, namely 51'^°<°', the 
house of Zadok is highly exalted : ' O give thanks 
unto Him that chose tlie sons of Zadok to be priests ' 
(S. Schechter and C. Taylor, The Wisdom of Ben 
Sira, Portions of the Book Ecdesiasticus, Cam- 
bridge, 1899). The whole hymn to which this 
passage belongs, namely vv.'==i')"''=('"', is omitted in 
the Greek translation of the grandson of Jesus Ben 
Sira, perhaps as Schechter (p. 35 f. ) suggests (cf. 
Th. Noldeke, ZATW, 1900, p. 92), because in the 
inten-al between the composition of the original 
text and that of the translation (i.e. between c. 200 
and 130 B.C.) the family of the previous Zadokite 
high priests had been superseded by the Has- 
inon.-eans. But after this latter event the high 
priesthood again became hereditary in the Has- 
momean line. At a later period Herod and the 
Romans set up and deposed high priests at their 
pleasure. From these non-acting high priests 
arose the group kno^vn as d/jx^peis. But the 
custom was always rigidly adhered to of select- 
ing the high priests only from certain special 
priestly families (Schiirer, p. 215 £f.). The anoint- 
ing of the high priest, which is ordained in the 
Priests' Code, was not in later times carried 
out in the case of all high priests, perhaps it was 
in general omitted ; the Mishna knows of high 
priests who were installed in office simply by 
clothing them with the official robes (Horajoth, iii. 
4 ; cf. Gesch. p. 140 ; Schurer, p. 232, note 26 ; 
AVeinel, ZATW, 1898, p. 66 f. ; Van Hoonacker, 
Sacerdoce, etc. p. 351 f.). The high priest, who, 
during the period of Jewish independence, was the 
head also of the State, was at least in later times 
president of the Sanhedrin, and in so far also the 
representative of the people in political matters in 
dealing with the Romans. As regards his partici- 
pation in the performance of the cultus, it was a 
later custom for him to ofl'er the daily ofl'ering 
during the week preceding the Day of Atonement ; 
any other share he might take in the work of 
sacrifice was simply according to his pleasure 
{Joma i. 2). Joseidms states tnat the higli priest 
offered as a rule on the Sabbath, at the new moon, 
and at the yearly festivals {BJ V. v. 7 ; Biicliler, 
Pricster, p. 68 ff., doubts whether in later times the 
high priest oflered except at the yearly festivals). 
The (laily minhdh, which according to the original 
intention of Lv 6'^"- he had to offer (see above, S 8 c), 
was not always offered by the high priest in person, 
but he defrayed the cost of it (Jos. Ant. in. x. 7, 
where Up(v% can be none but tlie high priest), a duty 
wliich Ezekiel imposed upon the 'prmce.' In the 
Roman period a conflict arose on tlie question of 
the kee])ing of the high priest's robes (Jos. Ant. 
XV. xi. 4, XVIII. iv. 3, XX. 1. 1, 2) ; wlien Jerusalem 
was taken, his robe of state fell into the hands of 
the Romans (BJ VI. viii. 3). 

Besides tlie higli-priestly office, we hear in the 
Rabbinical literature of an exalted priestly office, 
that of the ^(gan ([jy), of which there is no mention 

in the OT. The scgan has usually been viewed aa 
the high priest's substitute, wlio had to take big 
place if he was prevented by Levitical uncleanness 
from discharging the duties of his office. But the 
existence of a standin" vicarius for tlie high priest 
is rendered improbable by the statement of the 
Mishna (Joma i. 1) that seven days before the 
Day of Atonement ' another priest ' was to be set 
apart to act for the high })ricst in the event of his 
being prevented from officiating. It is not at all 
likely that this statement in the Mislina relates to 
an earlier practice, and that afterwards (subsequent 
to the year A.d. 63) the scgan was appointed aa 
substitute for the high priest (Buchler, Priester, p. 
1 13), for there is nothing known of such a change. 
Since the LXX usually reproduces theword sigunim, 
which is used in the OT for non-priestly officials, by 
tTTpaT-qyol, Schiirer (p. 264 f.) is probably right in 
seeing in the segan the captain of the temple (arpa- 
TTiybs ToD lepou), who is repeatedly mentioned in the 
NT and by Josephus, and in attributing to him the 
principal oversight of the external order of the 
temple. Yet Joma 39* (Biicliler, Pricster, p. 105) 
looks upon the segan as in some measure the repre- 
sentative of the high priest. Tlie sCganim in the 
plural (Bikkurim iii. 3) are doubtless, like the o-rpa- 
T1770/ (Lk 22^- °2), heads of the temple police sub- 
ordinate to the sSgan. In the Mishna (Bikkurim, 
iii. 3) there are mentioned as going to meet the festive 
procession which accompanied the bikkurim — the 
pahuth (nins), the segdnim, and the qizbdrim. It 
may be inferred that by the first of these designa- 
tions, as by the two following, priests are intended, 
although pahvth is used also for secular governors. 
But a special priestly office can hardly be con- 
noted by the word, which apparentlj' corresponds 
to the NT dpxifpeis (Schiirer, p. 266). The gia 
bdrim (o-i;!:. Peak i. 6 end) or ya^o(pv\aKes (Joa 
Ant. XV. xi. 4, XVIII. iv. 3) had charge of the rich 
temple treasures. From the description of th« 
Chronicler, it appears necessary to hold that in 
his time the administration of the temple revenue 
and capital was in the hands of the Levites. At a 
later period the higher posts as treasurers appear to 
have been held by priests, for the gizbdrim appear 
as higli temple officials alongside of the segdnim 
(Bikkurim iii. 3), and Josephus (Ant. xx. viii. 11) 
names the yafo^i'XoJ, i.e. probably the head of the 
treasurers, immediately after the high priest. It 
is possible that the Chronicler, in his account of 
the management of the temple treasury, has, in his 
preference for the Levites, arbitrarily put these in 
the foreground (but cf. Ex 38='). But, seeing that 
in the matter of other duties and rights the Levitea 
were in point of fact displaced in later times by the 
priests, the same may have happened with the 
holding of treasury offices. Under Nehemiah (Neh 
13" M) a priest was at the head of the treasurera 
(i.e. those who were set over the 'Czdrith, ' store- 
houses '), among whom only one is stated to have 
been a Levite. Sam. Krauss (p. 673 f.) doubts, 
however, whether the gizbdrim were priests, they 
being, as far as is known to the present writer, 
nowhere directly called such. To the treasury 
officials probably belonged also the 'dmarkHin 
(p'73-ox), who, without a more particular definition 
of the term, are mentioned in the Mishn.a only 
once, along with the gizbdrim (Shekalim v. 2), ana 
are named also in later literature, as a rule, together 
with the gizbdri7n (Schiirer, p. 270 f.). Sam. Krauss 
(p. 673) holds the 'dmarkclin also to have been lay- 
men, drawin" this inference from the Midrash 
Wajikra Rabba (Par. V. ch. v. 3 ; in A. Wiinsche'a 
Bibliotheca liabbinica, Liefer. 26, 1884, p. 36), 
according to which the 'dmarkol liad a right to par 
take of the holy things, but not, like the high pnest, 
of the offcrinjjs. But Schiirer (p. 270) is probably 
right in referring to Tosefla Hctrajoth, end (Tosefta, 




ed. by M. S. Zutkermandel, 18S0, p. 476, bottom), 
where in a graduated list the iXmarkOl and the 
i/izbdr are aUove tlie ordinary priest, the latter is 
above the Levite, and this last again above the 
Israelite, i.e. the layman (cf. also Oraetz, Monats- 
.■iihri/t, 1885, p. 1U4). It is coiTect, however, that 
the official name 'Umarkul is used to desij;nate the 
office not only of priest, but of administrator in 
^•eneral (Biichler, Pricxtcr, p. UiO tt. ; Schiirer, p. 
■JTu). Accordin"^ to Biichler (p. 90 ti'.), tliere were, 
in addition to the regular priestly ghbdrhn and 
\}mnr/;elin, others who were selected from the 
successive divisions of officiating priests ; but no 
express testimony is known of the use of these 
two names for heads of these divisions. — Only in 
the Jerusalem Talmud is the office of the katohkin 
Wr'yr.j, Ka$o\tKoi) named (SchUrer, p. 271). 

The cultus wa-s, according to the Law, to be 
performed by all priests ; but in course of time the 
ditlerent functions became so complicated and in 
part ditlicult, that, according to the Mishna, they 
were apportioned amon" dillerent priestly officials, 
and certain duties, such as that of preparing the 
shewbread and the incense, became liereditary in 
particular families (Schiirer, p. 275 ff.). 

In addition to their serv'ice in the temple, the 
priests are known to Josephus as administrators of 
the most imjwrtant concerns of the community, 
under the presidency of the high priest (c. Apion. 
ii. 21). He has in view primarily Jeru.salem. But 
in all cities there were, according to him {Ant. iv. 
viii. 14), as Moses had enjoined, men of the tribe 
of Le>'i appointed, two for each court of seven, to 
assist the members as vin)p4Tai. Such an enact- 
ment is not found in the Pentateuch ; Josephus 
must then have in view arrangements existing in 
his own time in Jud.ea under the Romans (dif- 
ferently Van Hoonacker, 6'accrrfoce, etc. p. 45f. ). 
From the designation vrrjp^rai it is more likely 
that these two assessors were Levites (Schiirer, 
p. 178) than that priests are meant (Biichler, 
Fricster, p. 180). According to the Mishna {San- 
hcdrin i. 3), priests are in certain instances to be 
called in as judges (cf. Jos. c. Apion. ii. 21). This 

i'udicial activity of the J)rie8ts, perhaps also of the 
>evites, is a continuation of the corresponding 
duties assigned to the [jriests in Deuteronomy and 
Kzekiel, and to the priests and Levites in Chron- 
icles. In the last resort this species of activity on 
the part of the personnel of the sanctuary goes 
back to the practice, with which we make acquaint- 
ance in the u<jok of the Covenant, of having certain 
lawsuits decided at the sanctuary, by means of the 
oracle of the Deity communicated by the priests. 

LlTERATTniK. — Jn. IJchtfoot. Minixterium Templi quale erat 
tfinpore noslri Hatualuru dencriplutn fz gcriptura et antiquis- 
ttmut Jxtdeeornm iHonnmentU (Ujitro, Koteradanii, lOi^, vol. i. 
pp. 671-768) ; Joh, Lundius, OU alten jiiilinchfn Iliiligthumer, 
'fOtteidifnste unil lir^rohnhfiJen, Jiir Aufjm qcntclUt, in einer 
atuffuhrlichm ikjfchreiOuny ties ganUen Levitischen PrienUr- 
Ihuyrut, etc, iUu von neuem iiberaehen, und in beygejiigten 
Atunerckungen. hin und wieder theilt verbestfrtt tlieils ver- 
infhrft durch Joh. Christoph. Wot/ium^ Uambun;, 1738 ; Joh. 
Gottlob Carpzov, Ajfparattit hittoriothcriticui anti/juifatum 
Maori ffuhcis et {/enlij/ heirneee uberrimia annolationibxts in 
Thtima: {ioodwinx itosen et Aaronem, Francofurthi et Lipaiio, 
1748. — On various points connected with the subject: Blosius 
Ugolinus, Thesaurus antiquilatum sacrantm, vols, ix, xii. 
and xiii., Veneliis, 17*8, 1761, and 17.'i2, especially * i*auli Frid. 
<>;'iiii commentariuB de custnilia t^'Hii)ti nocturna,' vol. ix. cc. 
I" ' I xxlx-MLXxvi ; 'Job. Saulnjrti de sacerdotibus et sacris 
KtTiMrum pt-rgonis coninietitarlus,' vol. xii. cc. I-Lxxx ; 
'Jon» Knniiblioltz Socerdolium Ebraicum,' ib. cc. Lxxxi- 
*'xx; 'Bias. IVolini 8acerdotium Ilebnucura," vol. xiii. cc. 
c.\xxv-Mcni.— K. H. Graf, ' Zur Geschichtc des Stammes Levi,' 
'n .Merx' Arc/iiv fur visxrnjtc/ia/ttiche Krforschung deg Alten 
T'tlamenlet, Bd. i. ISC'-ltt'.i, pp. 68-106, 208-236; S. I. Curliai, 
The Levilicat PriejU, a e.^nitnltution to the crilicigm of the 
Pentateuch. Edinl»urgh and Leipzig, 1877, also De Aaronitici 
»arrr<totii atqite ThorcB elohittica origine dieeertatio hintnriro- 
eTit«-a, Lip8i;e, 1878; Oort, ' De Aiironledcn,' In ThT, Jaarsr. 
xviij. 1K84, i)p. 2S9-335; W. W. CJrt. BaudlBsln, Die Geeehicl.le 
de* ttltteKtatrteni lichen Prieeterthutne untersueht , Leipzig. Ib-^O, 
on pp. xi-xv of which see a fuller list of the Literfttun on the 
VOL. IV. — 7 

history of the OT priesthood since 1S06, to which may be 
added : J. M. Jost. Ueadiichte des Judenthume und seiner 
Hecten, Abtheiluug i., Leipzis;. lSo7, pp. 146-156 ('Ucr jungere 
Prresterstand ■), p. 156 f. ('Leviten'), pp. 158-167 ('GottesdieJist- 
Ordiiung ini Tenipel '), pp. KiS-lsu (' Uottesdienst dcr Synagoge 
niid gottesdienstliche IIandh]n;,'en ') ; Gractz, • Die letzten 
Tempelbeamten vor der Tenipelzcrstorung und die Tenipel- 
auiter,' in Monaleschrljt Jur tjtichichte und n'ismucha/l det 
Judcnthume, Jahrg. xxxiv. 1885, pp. 193-205, also ' Eine 
Strafmas.sre;.'el gegeu die Leviten,'«6. xxxv. 1886, pp. 97-108; 
Hcinr. Biberfeld, Der Vbergang des levitiechen Dienstgehallee 
am die /'i tetter (Leipziger Dissertation), Beriin, 1888.— More 
recent works: E. Kautzsch, article 'Levi, Leviten,' in Erscb 
and Gruber's AU/jetneine Kncijklopddie, Section ii. ThI. xliii 

1889, pp. 282-293; H. Vogelstein, Der Kampf zwischen 
Priestem und Leviten teit den Tagen Ezechiels, Stettin, 
1889 ; A. Kuenen, ' De geschiedenis der priesters van Jaliwe 
en de ouderdoin der priesterlijlve wet,' in 'i'h'l\ Jaarg. xxiv. 

1890, pp. 1-12 l=GesamiiLelte Abhandlungen zur BMischen 
Wisseiuchajt, tr. by K. Budde, Freiburg i. B. 1894, pp. 465- 
500]; Ch. Piepenbring, ' Histoire des lieux de cuke et ou sacer- 
doce en Israel," in Jievue de ihixtoire dee lit'ligioiie, Ann. m. 
t. xxiv. IS'Jl, pp. l-flO, 133-186 (a risumi of the Reuss-Well- 
hausen view of the history); Bruno Baent^ch, Das Heiligkeite- 
qesetz Lv xcii-xxvi, Erfurt, 1»93, pp. 142-144 ('Die heiligen 
Personen ) ; J. U. Breasted, ' The development of the priest- 
hood in Israel and Egyi)t, a comparison,' in The Biblical ICc/rW, 
new series, n. i., July 189:!, pp. 19-'28 [not seen] ; I. Benzingcr, 
Uebrdieche Archaologie. Freiburg i. B. 1894, pp. 40.5-428 ; \V. 
Nowack, Lehrbueh der hebraiachen Archdoloqie. Freiburg i. B. 
1894, Bd. ii. pp. 87-130 : Ad. Buchler, Die 'Priesler und der 
Vultue im letzten Jahrzehnt dee JerxLSalemischen Tempele, 
Wien, 1895 (see a review of this work by Schiirer in ThLZ, 
1893, col. 616 (^.) ; Samuel Krauss, * Priests and worship in the 
last decade of the temple at Jerusalem,' in the J(^R, vol. viii. 
1898, pp. 066-678; Ed. Meyer, Die Entstehunn des Juden- 
thuins, Halle a. S. 1896, pp. 168-183 (' Die (Jeistliclikeit ') ; U. A. 
Poels, Examen critique de I'hietoire du sancttiaire de I'arche, 
tome L, Louvain, 1897, pp. 292-301 ('Les prctres de Nob') ; E. 
Sellin, Beitrttge zur Israelitischen und Jiidi^chen lieligions- 
g'sehichte, Heft ii., Leipzig, 1897, pp. 109-121; E. Scburer, 
GrucUichte des jiidij:chen Volkee im Zeitalter Jesu Chrinti' 
(Eng. tr. from 2nd ed., under title History o/ the Jewish People 
in lite time of Jesus Christ, b vols., Edin., T. & T. Clark, 1885- 
1890J, Bd. u., Leipzig, 1893, pp. 214-'299 (' Die Hohcnpriester,' 
'Die Priesterscbaft und der Tempelcultus ') ; Ad. Buchler, 
* Zur Geschichte des Tempelcultus in Jerusalem,' in lieaieil des 
travaux ridigis en memoire du Juhili Scientific de M. Daniel 
Chwolsnn, Berlin, 1899, pp. 1-41 (I. ' Die Verloosung dcr Dienst- 
gesch.ifte'; IL 'Simon, der Gerechte" ; III. 'Die Signale ira 
Tempel (iir die einzelnen Dienstgeschitfte ') ; T. K. Cheyne, 
'The priesthood of David's sons,' in Expos., I-lfth series, ix. 
(1899) pp. 453-457; A. Van lloonacker, Le sacerdoce Livitigue 
dans laloi et dans I'histoire des IWbreux, London and Louvain, 
1899 (cf. ThLX, 18i», col. 35911.), 'Les pr6tres et les Invites 
dans le livre d'Ez6chieI,' in Jlev. bibl. internal. 1899, ii. pp. 177- 
205 [not seenj ; Fr. v. Hunimelauer, Das vonnosaische friester. 
thtun inlsracl, Freiburg i. Ii. 1899 ; J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena 
zur Geschichte Israelii, Berlin. 1899, Kap. 4 (' Die Priester und 
Leviten '), Kap. 5 (' Die Ausstattuiig des Klerus ') [Ist ed., under 
title 'Gescliichte Israels,' 1878, pp. 123-174]. 

On the high priests, see Literature in Schiirer {tc. p. 214), and 
add B. Pick, ' The Jewish High Priests subsequent Vt the 
return from Babylon," in the Lutheran Church lieview, 1898, i. 
pp. 127-142, ii. pp. 370-374, iii. pp. 650-656, iv. pp. 655-664 [not 

On the temple singers : Justus Koberic, Die Teinpelsdnger im 
Alten Testament, Eriangen, 1899 (cf. ThLK, 1899, col. 676 fl.); 
Ad. Buchler, 'Zur Geschichte dcr Tempelmusik und der Tem- 
pelpsalmen,' in ZATW, xix. 1899, pp. 90-133, 329-344, XX. 1900, 
pp. 97-135. 

On the Nethinim, see Literature in SchUrer, l.o. p. 279, 

note 94. 

On the ki^nulrim : Christoph. Braunhardt, Dissertatio phiio- 
lojica de ta'TDD sen hierophantis Judceonan ex S lieg. tS. 6, 
Wittebergae, 1680 ; Conr. Ikenius, Dissertatio theologico-phiio- 
loaica de Cemarim ad UlustratioTiem locorum t Ileg. tS. 6, 
Uot. 10. 6, Zeph. 1. h, Brem», 1729. 

On the priests' dress : Joh. Braun, Vestitus sacerdotum 
nel/ra-orum^, Amstelod. 1701 ; ' Bened. David Carpzovii dis- 
flcrtauo de pontiilcum llebrieorum vestitu sacro,' in Ugolinus, 
Thesaurus, vol. xii. cc. dcclwxv-dcccx ; further, on tlie same 
subject, some other dissertations, ih. vols. xii. and xiii. ; F. 
de Saulcy, * Rccherclu's sur le costume eacenlotal chcz toe 
Juils,' in lieime archt'oltKjique, nouv. s^irie, vol. xx. 1S6*, 
pp. 100-115; V. Ancessi, ' l.cs vCtements du grand prGtre et 
des Invites ' (L'Egi/pte et Moisr, premiiire panic), Paris, 1876. 
Cf., further, the Literature cited in Schiirer, i.e. p. 263 f. 
note 6. 

On the priesthood among the ancient Arabs : J. Wellhausen, 
Iteste arabischen lleideiilums^, Berlin, 1897, pp. 130-140 
(' Heilige Personen ') ; among the Babylonians : Friedr. Jerc- 
mias in Ciiantepie de la Saussaye, Lehrbueh der lietiginns- 
ntschicltte'', Freiburg i. B. 1897, I'.ii. i. p. 203 f. ; among the 
Pboinicians : F. 0. Movers, Die rhun<;ier, lid. I., Bonn, 1841, 

pp. 676-690. Wolf Baudissin. 

PRIEST IN NT.— 1. The word 'priest' {kpevt) is 
used in the NT of the sacrificing ministers of any 




religion. The priest of Zeus is mentioned in Ac 
14", the priest of the true God in Mt 8*. Refor- 
enoes, indeed, are numerous in the NT, especially 
in the Gospels, to the priests of tlie OT. In Lk 
!'• " alhision is made to the twenty-four itptififpiai 
into which they were divided, and to the assijjn- 
ment of certain of their duties bj' lot. The NT 
throws little liglit, however, on the standing of 
the priests generally, or on the service they 
rendered to the nation. The Gospels speak 
almost e.xclusively of those whom they call the 
dpx'fpf'Si or chief priests. The high priest was 
cliosen, as a rule, from one of a small number of 
priestly families, and, when the olliee ceased to be 
held for life, there might be a number of persons 
entitled by courtesj' to the name. An ex-high 
priest, if a man of unusual force of character, 
might actually exercise a greater influence in the 
direction of ecclesiastical or political afi'airs than 
the proper holder of the ottice, and either over- 
shadow the latter in the common mind, or prac- 
tically share his distinction. It is thus we must 
explain such expressions as Lk 3' irl dpx'fp^ws 
'Avra utoi Kaidipa = ' in the high priesthood of Annas 
and Caiaphas,' and the part taken by Annas (wliile 
Caiaphas was titular high priest) in the trial of 
Jesus (Jn 18"). So also in Ac 4' the dignity of 
the high priesthood is retlected on if not extended 
to all the members of the 7^»'os apxiepariKdr ; there 
was a kind of aristocracy among the priests, and 
it was from it that the high priest proper was 
chosen. Though the apx^epeU made common cause 
^vith the Pharisees in their hostility to Christi- 
anity, they were themselves on the Sadducjean 
side (Ac 5"), and the most determined opposition 
to the preaching of the resurrection came from 
them. Probably the inferior members of the 
priestly order, who had but a nominal share in 
its prerogatives, were more free from its preju- 
dices ; it would be among them that the great 
multitude of priests was found which ' became 
obedient to the faith' (Ac 6'). On the whole sub- 
ject of the Jewish priests in NT times, see Schiirer, 
G,7P ii. 21i-305 [BJP U. i. 195-305], and the pre- 
ceding article, esp. § 10c. 

2. A more important subject is that which is 
suggested by the use of the word ' priest ' in the 
interpretation of the Christian religion. In the 
NT it is only in the Epistle to the Hebrews 
that Jesus is spoken of as Upeit, fUyai lepeii, and 
apxiepfis — terms which are not to be distinguished 
from each other, the last two only signifying 
Christ's eminence in the priestly character. In 
the highest sense of the term, so to speak. He is a 
priest. But what is a priest ? In the Ep. to the 
Hebrews, it may be said, the priest is tlie person 
through whom and through whose ministry people 
draw near to God, through whom they are 'sancti- 
fied ' ; that is, made a people of (^rod, and enabled 
to worship. The writer does not think of such a 
thing as a religion without a priest. Men are 
sinful men, and without mediation of some kind 
tliey cannot draw near to God at all. The people 
of God had mediators under the OT, and they have 
a mediator under the NT. It is on the character 
of the mediator that the character of the religion 
depends. If he is imperfect the religion will be 
imperfect ; there will be no real or pennanent 
access to God, no real liberation of the conscience. 
But if he is what he should be, then the perfect, 
and therefore the final, religion has come. The 
conscience will be efl'ectually purged, sin as a 
barrier between God and man will be etVectually 
removed, the waj- into the holiest of all will \ie 
opened, and the covenant realized in the abiding 
fellowship of God and His people. It is from this 
point of view that the writer works out the contrast 
between the OT and the NT. The Jewish religion 

was a true one, for God had given it ; but it waa 
not (/le true and therefore not the final one, for its 
priesthood was im|ierfect. Everything about it 
was imperfect. The priests themselves were im- 
perfect. They were mortal men, and could not 
continup of deatli. They were sinful men, 
too, and had to otl'er for their own sins before they 
could oiler for those of the people. The sanctuary 
was imperfect, a (£7101' Kodp^iKbv, not the real <lwell- 
ing-place of God. The sacrifices were imperfect ; 
tlie blood of buUs and goats and other animals, 
whatever its virtue, could not make the worshin- 
pers perfect touching the conscience ; that is, could 
not bring them to the desired goal of a fearless jieace 
toward God. The very repetition of the sacrifices 
showed that the work of removing sin had not 
really and once for all been achieved. And, finally, 
the access to God was imperfect. The priests had 
no access at all into the Holiest Place, and when 
the high priest did enter on one day in the year it 
was no abiding entrance ; the communion of the 
people with God, which his presence there symbol- 
ized, was lost, it might be said, as soon as won ; he 
came out from the shrine and the veil closed behind 
him, ' the Holy Ghost this signifying, that the 
way into the holiest of all had not Vet teen made 
manifest.' Everything in the old religion had im- 
perfection written upon it — the imperfection in- 
volved in the nature of its priests (oiSkv yap ere- 
Xeiojaev 6 fd^os, He 7'^). 

It is in contrast with this that Christ's priest- 
hood is set forth. Christianity is the perfect and 
final religion, because Christ is the perfect priest. 
An OT foundation for this doctrine is found in 
Ps 110*, where the Messiah is aildressed bv God 
as ' a priest for ever, after the order of Melchize- 
dek.' Perhaps one should call it rather a point 
of attachment than a foundation, for though it 
probably served the writer's |)urpose in arresting 
the attention of his readers, the ideas whicJi he 
connects with the priesthood of Christ are not, 
strictly sneaking, derived frum it. The order of 
Melcliizedek is contrasted with that of Aaron : 
the two orders exclude each otlier. Christ is not 
a priest after the order of Aaron upon earth, and 
afterwards, in heaven, a priest after the order 
of Melchizedek : being what He is, the Son of 
God, in the sense understood in this Epistle, His 
priesthood can be of the Melchizedek order alone. 
In Him and through His ministry a fellowship 
with God has been realized on the behalf of men 
which is [lerfect and which abides. The word 
which is used to express this in the Epistle is 
a/aVios. Inasmuch as He is the true priest, 
Christ's blood is the blood of an eternal covenant. 
He oU'ered Himself through eternal spirit. He has 
become the autljor of eternal salvation, has ob- 
tained eternal rodeiuption. and en.ables men to get 
hold of the eternal inheritance (5" 9''^- '■'• " KS*"). 
All these are ways of indicating the perfection 
and finality of His priesthood, i.e. of His function 
to mediate between the holy God and sinful men, 
and to realize in Himself, and enable sinful men to 
realize, a complete and abiding fellowship with God. 

Among the aspects or constituents of Christ's 
priesthood on which the writer lays emphasis .are 
these. (1) His communion. He 5'. God nmst 
appoint the priest, for he is to be the minister of 
His grace. No man can take this honour to him- 
self. The writer seems to find the Divine commis- 
sion in the psalms quoted in He 5"- (Ps 2' 110*), 
but he connects these imniediatel}' in v."- with 
what seems to be a reference to the agony in 
(Jethsemane, as though it were there, historically, 
that Jesus received this hi<;h and hard calling. 
(2) His preparation. This is a jioint on which 
great stress is put. To be a merciful and trust- 
worthy high priest (2"), it is necessary that he 




ehould be to the utmost possible extent one with 
those whom he represents before God. Hence lie 
becomes like them a partaker of llesh and blood 
(2"), is tempted in all points like us (4"), learns 
obedience by the thin;4s which he suffers (5"), 
knows what it is to worship with others and to 
■«ait upon God (2'^-), and at last to taste death. 
Sin apart (4"), nothing human is alien to him ; in 
virtue of his nature and his experience he can 
synipatliize with us ; through sutiering, especially, 
he has been made ' perfect,' i.e. been made all that 
he ought to be as a ' captain of salvation,' or a 
piiest to stand before God for sinful men, able 
truly to enter into their case. On the word 
* perfect ' {Te\eiwa(u) see Davidson, Hebrews, p. 
207 f. (3) His offering. Every priest is appointed 
to oll'or gifts and sacrifices (S') for sins (5'), and 
this one also must have something to oiier. What 
is it! In a word, it is himself. This is more 
easily said than interpreted. There is a passage 
in the Epistle (lO*-') in which, following Ps 4u'-«, 
what Christ did is contrasted with ' sacrifices and 
ofl'erings and whole burnt-oHerings and sin-oil'er- 
ings,' as ' doing the will of God ' ; and it is said 
that Scripture puts away the first to establish the 
second. From this it is often inferred that Christ's 
■work was not sacrificial, and especially that His 
death is not to be conceived as an olVering for sin ; 
sacrifice, it la said, is abolished to make room for 
obedience. But this is certainly not the contrast 
in the writer's mind. The conception of oll'ering 
or saerifice is essential to him, and to Christ as 
priest. This priest, like every other, mvsf have 
somewhat to oiler. Indeed, immediately after the 
remark that He puts away the first (the OT sacri- 
fices) to e-stablish the second (the doing of God's 
will), he adds, ' in which will we have been sancti- 
fied through the olTcring of the hodij of Jcius Christ 
OTice for all.' \\ hat He opposes is not sacrifice 
and obedience simplkitnr, bnt the OT sacrifices, 
in which the victims were involuntary, and the 
ofl'ering therefore morally imperfect, not to say 
meaningless, and Christ's willing sacrifice of Him- 
self, which was an act of obedience to the Father. 
As a voluntary act of obedience this sacrifice had 
a significance and a moral worth wliicli no animal 
sacrifice could have. But the obedience involved 
in it was not simply the obedience required of man 
as such ; it was the obedience required of the 
Son whom the I'^ther had commissioned to be the 
mediator of a new covenant, the restorer of fellow- 
ship between Himself and sinful men ; in other 
words, it was the obedicnre of a priest, who had 
'to annul sin by the sacrifice of himself (U"), to 
be ' offered once for all to bear the sins of many ' 
(9™), to enter into the sanctuary 'through his own 
blood' (9'^), ' liy one offering to perfect for ever 
them th;it are Ijeing sanctified ' (10'^). In short, it 
is not sacrifice and obedience that are blankly 
contrasted here, but unintelligent wUl-less animal 
sacrifice, and the sacrificial obedience of the Priest 
who willingly dies to make purgation of sins (1'). 
As the perfect priest Christ made once for all the 
perfect sacrifice for sin ; that is why the Levitical 
sacrifices have passed away. (4) 'V\\(i scene of Uis 
ministry, or the sanctuary. 'The true ollering is 
made in the true sanctuary, i.e. heaven. It is there 
that Christ appears in the presence of God for us. 
It is there, in Ilis person, that there is realized the 
abiding fellowship of God and man into which the 
gospel calls us. But this does not mean that 
wliut has been spoken of under the of His 
ollering, namely Ilis death, is not included in His 
priestly work. To break the work of the perfect 
priest into pieces in tliis way is foreign to the 
writer's mode of thought. The priest's work, his 
OlVering, is not consummated till lie enters with it 
(and by means of il) into God's presence; it is 

then that he is in the full sense a priest. Hence 
Christ is conceived as e.\ercising His priestlj- 
function in the sanctuary above ; but He could 
not be priest there except in virtue of the com- 
mission, the preparation, and the ollering, which 
have just been described. All these therefore 
belong to the conception of the priesthood as mnch 
as what is done in the heavenly sanctuary itself. 
(5) His intercession. He is able to save to the 
uttermost those who draw near to God through 
Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession 
for them. In what the intercession consists is 
nowhere explained. The writer to the Hebrews 
does not dehne it as the perjjetuating, or makin>' 
prevalent for all time, of an atoning work achieved 
on earth ; he does not conceive of the atoning 
work as achieved at all except through the entrance 
of the piiest into the presence of (iod Sia rod ioiov 
aifidTos. On the other hand, it seems to be less 
than what he means, if we say that His mere 
appearin;^ in God's presence, even with tlie virtue 
ot His sin-annulling work in Him, is itself the 
intercession — a continuous and prevailing plea 
with God to receive even those who have sinned 
into fellowship with Himself, and not to let sin 
annul His covenant. It is a fair inference from 4" 
(that we may find grace /or timely succour}, taken 
in connexion with what precedes, that the inter- 
ce.ssion of the great High Priest is not a continu- 
ous unvarying representation of man before God, 
but relates itself sympathetically to the vari- 
ously emergent necessities and crises of individual 
life. (6) The rssitlt of Christ's priesthood. The 
result is, in a word, the establisliment of the new 
covenant between God and man. In Christ, and 
on the basis of His work, God is our God again, 
and we are His people. Because Christ is all that 
a priest should be, the new relation of God and man 
realized in Him is all that such a relation should be ; 
Christianity is a new, but also the final, because 
the perfect religion. Tliere are various ways in 
whicii this is expressed in detail. Those who have 
the perfect priest are freed from the fear of death 
(2'°) ; can come with boldness to God's throne and 
find it a throne of grace (4'") ; have a hope of 
immortality that nothing can shake, knowing as 
they do that Jesus has entered within the veO as 
their forerunner (G-") ; have an assurance, in the 
indissoluble life of Christ (7'"), in the priesthood 
which as founded on it never to another 
or can never be trenched upon by another (7''"), 
and in the intercession of their deathless rei)re- 
sentative, that complete salvation awaits them ; 
in their worship are made perfect as touching the 
conscience, i.e. completely delivered from sin as 
that which hinders access to God (9*'"). And as 
the blessings of the covenant are infinite, so (he 
deliberate and wilful rejection of them, and the 
relapse from the fellowship with God assured in 
Christ to any inferior religious standpoint (G'"'- 
lO-'""-), is the unpardonable sin. 

3. The Epistle to the Hebrews does not attrib- 
ute to believers as priests any of the special 
functions involved in the unique priesthood of 
Christ. In Ex 19' Israel is sjioken of as n:^:;^ 
0')-S, i.e. God's people are His kingdom, and 
they are priests, with the right of access to Him. 
As the N'r point of view is that there is only one 
people of Uod through all time, this conceiition is 
found in the NT also : see esi)ecially Uev 1" 5'° 20", 
1 P 2'**' (iepdreu/ia dyiov, piaaiXeioi' : f]affi\flav, lepeU 
TV <?ev ""■^ TraTpi aiToC). In substance, the same 
thing is meant when wo read in Hebrews of the 
right to 'draw near with boldness,' or in Eph 2" 
that through Christ all Christians alike have ' their 
access (ttji' Trpoffayioy^v : the chara<;teristic privilege 
of the new religion, Bo !>'', I 1' 3'") in one spirit to 
the Father.' To the Father : for in experience the 




sonship of believers and their priesthood are one 
and the same thing. Sonship and priesthood are 
two Bgures under which we can represent the 
characteristic relation of man to God, his charac- 
teristic standing toward God, in the new religion 
instituted by Christ. Formally distin^ishable, 
they are really and experimentally the same. 
Christ Himself was perfect priest only because He 
was true Son of God ; His priesthood, though it 
was His vocation, was grounded in His nature : it 
had nothing oHicial in it, but was throughout 
personal and real. So it is with the priesthood of 
believers : it also is involved in sonsliip, is one 
element or function of sonship, and only as such 
has it any meaning. The writer to the Hebrews 
speaks of Christians as ottering to God saerilices 
of praise, the fruit of lips making confession to His 
name. He bids them remember benehoence and 
charity, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. 
So St. Peter says Christians are a holy priesthood 
to otter spiritual s.acrifices, acceptable to God 
through Jesus Christ ( 1 P 2') ; and St. Paul bids the 
Romans present tlieir bodies a living sacrifice, 
holy, acceptable to God, which is the rational 
worship required of them (Ro 12'). Praise, self- 
consecration, charity, — if we include Rev 8', we 
may add, after the analogy of Ps 14P, prayer, — 
these are the only sacrifices which the priestly 
people of God may oft'er now. There is no such 
thing in the NT as a sacrifice for sin except the 
sacrifice which Christ ottered once for all. 

4. The NT does not apply the word lepeiJi to any 
Christian minister, nor indeed to any Christian at 
all, except so far as the people of God are spoken 
of as a ' royal priesthood.' It is easy to see why. 
Christianity is what it is — a perfect and abiding 
fellowship with God— because it is realized in the 
Eternal Son of God. It cannot be realized or 
guaranteed in any other. He is the Mediator of 
it, to whom it owes its character. To introduce 
into it, no matter how we define their relation to 
Him, official mediators, is to relapse from the 
Melchizedek priesthood to the Aaronic ; it is in 
principle to apostatize from Christianity. The pic- 
torial use of language borrowed from the old re- 
ligion is, of course, intelligible enough. St. Paul, 
e.ff., can speak of himself as lepovpywv rb cvayyiXiov 
ToO fleoO, discharging a sacred function toward the 
gospel, and presenting^ the Gentiles as an offering 
to God (Ro 15'« ; cf. Ph 2"). But there is not, as 
in the nature of the case there could not be, any 
trace in the NT of a Christian priest making 
sacrifice for sin, and mediating again (in the 
Aaronic, official, mortal, never perfect, and never 
to be perfected fashion) between God and man. 

LiTBRATuuK. — Schurer, as &bove ; the books on NT theology, 
Weiss, Pfleiderer, Beyschlag, Holtzomnn ; the commeDtaries oo 
Hebrews, esp. the extended notes in Davidson ; Bruce, Ep. to 
the Uebrpwg, and art. Hebrews in this Dictionary ; Milligan, 
Aacerufion and Heavenly Priesthood ; Westcott, llebrewa ; also 
Prioithood and Sacrifice (Eeport of Conference at OxfordX 
edited by W. Sauday, 1900. J. DeNNEY. 

PRINCE is the AV tr. of no fewer than 16 Hebrew 
or Hebraized terms in OT and 3 Greelc ones in NT. 

1. (CC'J, lit. ' exalted one ' from n;j ' lift up.' This 
word is practically confined (the only exceptions 
are Ex 22-''l«» [J or E], 1 K 8' ll" [both W], and 
Pr 25") to the writings of P, the Chronicler, and 
Ezekiel. It is used in Gn l"*" (LXX (Bvti ' nations ') 
25'" (ipxovrei) of the twelve 'princes' descended 
from Isiimael ; in 23" it is put by P in the mouth of 
the ' children of Heth ' as a designation of Abra- 
ham (LXX ^airtXei;!) ; in 34' it is applied to Shechera 
the son of Hamor tipx'^' ! so, or Bipxoym, in the 
LXX of all the following pa-ssages, unless other- 
wise noted) ; in Nu 25" of a prince of Midian ; in 
Jos 13-' of the princes of Sihon. It is especially 
frequent for the beads of the Isr. tribes : £x 16'^ 

34", Lv 4'' (AV and RV in these three passages 
'rulers'), Nu 2^ V<'- 31'» etc., Jos g"- is. is. 21 174 
2214. so. 82^ so also 1 Ch 2'» i^ 5« 1*^ etc., cf. Ex 2i« 
(28) ('Thou shalt not revile God nor curse a ruler of 
thy people'), and 1 K 8' (A iir-riaiUvoi., prob. error 
for iTT-qpiiivoi, Aq.'s tr. of nVJ in Ex 22'^ ; B om.) = 
2 Ch 5- (S.pxoi'Te';), where the princes of the fathers' 
houses of the children of Israel were assembled by 
Solomon. In IK 11" the term nast' is used of 
Solomon himself ('I will make him prince,' K'i:) 
>in*t;'t<, LXX avmaffffbfievoi avrtrd^o^ai), and in Ezr 1^ 
the Chronicler applies it to Shcslibazzar. In Ezk 
not only is it used of the king of Judah (12'»- '^ 21*' 
tEng. 25] [a.<j)TtyoviJifvoi\), and of Isr. and foreign princes 
(7=' 21" [E»s. 121 [d^iryoi'Mfo'] 26'« 30" 32-" etc.), but 
han-nasi' \a the special designation of the head of 
the future ideal State (34=» 37=^ [both 6 dpx""] 44' 
[6 iryoiiievo^'l 45'- '«• "• 22 46'-- ■■• <*■ ">• '■■'■ '«• "• '« 48-''- --' [all 
b d.(priyoiiievoi\). For the later Talmudic use of nasi' 
as the technical title for the president of the 
Sanhedrin see art. Sanhedrin ; Kuenen, Ge- 
samm. Abhandl. [Budde's tr.] p. 58 f.; Schiirer, 
RJP II. i. 180 ff. ; Weber, Jud. Theologie, p. 140. 
The title nasi' was also assumed by Simeon bar- 
Cochba (the leader of the Jewish revolt A. D. 132), 
whose coins are stamped ' Simeon nasi' of Israel ' 
(see art. Money in vol. iii. p. 430'', and Schurer, 
H.JP I. ii. 299). 

2. IS' occurs with extreme frequency. The verbal 
form Tii? is found 4 times in Qal (Jg 9=^ Is 32', Pr 
8", Est P-), twice in Hithp. (Nu 16'^""), and once 
in Hiph. (Hos8*). In Jg 9-'' and Hos 8'' it is pointed 
in MT as if from -no, but see Konig, i. 328, 352. It 
is uncertain whetlier this is the primitive root = 
'have power,' 'exercise rule,' or whether it is a 
denominative from iv. Amongst other applica- 
tions, V [in the following passages reproduced in 
LXX, unless otherwise noted, by fi/JX""] is used of 
ofiicers or rulers whether military Ex 18^ (AV and 
RV 'rulers'), Nu 21'8, Is 21», 2 Ch 32^' || tjj (AV 
and RV 'captains'), or civil 1 Ch 27" (irpoo-Tdrai, 
AV and RV 'rulers'), cf. 29' etc., particularly of 
royal officials Gn 12", 2 K ■J4'^ Hos 3*, Ezr S^ ; of 
the chiefs of foreign nations Jg 1^ 8' (Midian), 1 S 
IS** (Philistines) ; of leaders in war 1 .S 22- (^701!- 
/ie»oi, AV and RV 'captains'), cf. 2 S Ii* and Neh 
2' (ifyxTtol); of the 'ruler of the city' Jg Q*", cf. 
1 K 222« (jSuffiXf i!s, AV and RV ' governor '), Neh V; 
of the chief of the eunuchs Dn 1"- '"■ (apx^evoirxos) ; 
the chief of the butlers or bakers Gn 40^-2" (apx'- 
oivoxbot, ipxt(riTOTroi6s), etc. ; the head of the priestly 
or Levitical classes Ezr S'^ 10», 1 Ch 15'«' -- etc. j 
the directors of the post-exilic community Neh 4"", 
cf. Ezr 9' 10''', Neh 11'. With the sense of ' prince ' 
proper, ii? is niainlv post-exilic. Est 1'*, Job 29' 
(dSpoO II D'l'J}, Ps 119='-''"; of the Messiah, 'the 
prince of peace' Is 9* (A apx"" ^IpV'V't B follows a 
ditterent text) ; of the guardian angels of the 
nations Dn 10"-=»-2i 12' (Theod. in all ipxi^', LXX 
in first three rrpar-qyiis, in last dyycXos) ; of God 
Dn 8" ('prince of the host,' dpxti^T/)dT7n'os)''(' prince 
of princes,' LXX follows a ditterent text). 

■rhe noun 'princess' in EV always represents 
.Tip (cf. the proper name SARAH). Its only two 
occurrences in AVare 1 K 11' (of the seven hundred 
wves of Solomon ; LXX fi/jxowat). La 1' (of Jerusa- 
lem ' princess among the provinces'; LXXapx<""''°l- 
To RV adds Est !'« (AV 'ladies,' LXX 
TvpamlSe^). There are only two other occurrences 
of mb in the Hebrew Bible. The one is Jg 5'^ 
n'n'np ntorn ( AV and RV ' her wise ladies,' Moore [cf. 
his note on the text], 'the sagestof lier princesses'; 
LXX dpxowai); the other Is Is4;ra (AV and RV 
'queens,' AVm 'princesses'; LXX ipxovaat). 

3. fJ}. The root meaning is probably ' one in 
front,' 'a leader.' This word is used in general 
of rulers or princes in Job 29'° (AV and KV 
'nobles,' LXX wants this verse) 31" (LXX follows 




aditlLTuiit text), Fs-G^-t^'^ipxw), Pr2S'« {3a<n\ei's). 
More particularly it is the designation of (n) the 
kinfi of Israel: Saul 1 S 9'" 10' [the use of t:} is 

Seculiar to the earlier of the two narratives of 
aul's election, "^; ' kinj;' being used in the other; 
the same distinction is oliscrved in the LXX dpx"'' 
anil iia<Ti.\evi] ; David 13''' (apx"" ; in the following 
passages ^yoi/^fi-o! unless otherwise noted) 25*, 
2S 5- (eiarryoiiiiroi) C-' 7^ 1 Ch H» 17', 2 Cli 6' 
[in all these passages relating to Saul and David, 
KV has 'prince,' AV has 'captain' in all except 
1 S 25^, 2 S 6-' 7', 1 Ch 11" 17', 2 Ch 6», where it 
has 'ruler'], Is 55' (AV and RV 'leader,' RVni 
'prince,' LXXdpx"''); Solomon 1 K 1"(AV 'ruler'), 
1 Ch 29" (AV 'chief governor,' LXX /SacriXetJs) ; 
Jeroboam 1 K 14' ; Baasha 16- ; Hezekiah 2 K 2U' 
( AV ' captain ') ; Abijah 2 Ch 1 1-^ (A V ' ruler ') ; cf. 
the choice of Judah 1 Ch 28' (AV 'ruler,' LXX if 
'Ioi'J(i rjpiTiKiv rh §a.tTi\ci.ov). — (b) A foreign ruler or 
prime : tlie prince of Tyre Ezk '28- (dpx"'') ; per- 
liaps also 'the prince that shall come' Dn 9-* 
(? Antiochus Kpiplianes, see below; Theod. i rjyov- 
fievos 6 ipx^^^voSy LXX ^aoikda idvC:v). — (c) A h'tfjh 
temple offici'il : Pashhur Jer 20' (AV 'chief gover- 
nor,' RV 'chief oHicer') ; cf. 1 Ch 9", 2 Ch 31" 35^ 
(AV and R V ' rulcr(s '), LXX in last 5.pxo<nrei), Neh 
11" (AV and RV ruler,' LXX airivavTi. oIkov toO 
Beau) ; the high priest Dn U'-^ ('the prince of the 
covenant'), and perhaps 9-''-" (AV in v.^ 'the 
Messiah the prince,' RV ' the anointed one, the 
prince'; Theod. x/'""'** Tnovixtvos). The prince in 
v.''" is frequently understood of Cyrus, and in v.-" 
of Ejiiphanes, but Bevau argues in favour of under- 
standing the reference in both instances to be to 
the high priest, the first being to Joshua the son of 
Jozadak (Ezr 3°, ll.i" 1', Zee 3'), and the second 
[reading oy n.-y: ' shall be destroyed with,' for cy 
r-ny:' the people shall destroy '] to Jason. the brother 
and successor of Onias III. — (d) A ruler in other 
cnjxicities. This use of the word is l.ate : the ' ruler ' 
of each tribe 1 Ch 27"^, 2 Ch 19"; the ' ruler' of the 
Korahites 1 Ch 9-°; the 'leader' of the Aaronite 
warriors 1 Ch 12-'; the ' leader ' of an armv division 
1 Ch 13' 27* (AV and RV 'ruler,' LX.^ dpx""). 
2Ch 11" ('captain' of a fortress) 32-' (in the 
Assyrian army; AV and RV 'leaders,' LXX 
dpXo"'fs) ; the 'ruler' over the temple treasuries 
1 Ch 26-'-' (6 iirl rdv eijaavpCii-), cf. 2 Ch 31'" (^tti- 
(TT-aTj)!). In 2 Ch 28' the 'house' (n;;n) of which 
Azrikam was ruler (AV 'governor'), is probably 
the palace ; cf. the familiar n:3Ci-Sy iyi< Is 22" 36'', 
1 K4«, 2 K 15" etc. 

4. 3-j, lit. 'willing,' e.g. a^i anj 'willing of 
heart' Ex 35»-"", 2 Ch 29"; nj-i} rj" 'a willing (AV 
and RV ' free') spirit' Ps 51" I'"' ; cf. the use of the 
verb 3:i "to volunteer ' Jg .->-- », 2 Ch 17", Neh 11", 
and the noun .i^t; 'freewill ofTering' Ex 3ri"« 36', 
Ezr 1" et eil. Hence 3"; may mean generous or 
noh/e in disposition: Pr I7-" (AV 'princes,' RV 
'the noble,; II pns), v.' (LXX SUaiot; AV and RV 
'a prince' is quite mi.sleading, see Tov, ml lor.), 
I8 32»» (AV and RV 'the liberal'; opposed here, 
as in Pr 17', to ^j:). The word is used of noble or 
princely rank in Nu 21" (the Soiij; of the Wei! ; 
AV and RV ' the nobles,' LX.\ /Saa-iXeis, || Dn-;> 
'princes,' ipxofTes. In the following passages, un- 
less otherwise noted, apxw is used by LXX to tr. 
3"}), 1 S 2" ('to make them sit with princes, ^trd 
Swaarwi' Xoiii-), .lob 12'-' = l's 107'° ('He poureth 
contempt upon princes') 21^ (' Where is the house 
of the prince?' 15 oZ/coj ipxovTo^, but A oTkos dpxaios) 
34", Ps 47'>"»i 83'" l"> (AVand RV 'nobles') 113'""' 
118" 146', Pr 8"> dlD-i;', LXX MfViirrai-fs and rdpavm 
respectively) 19« (AV and RVm 'prince' seems 
preferable to RV 'liberal man'; LXX /SoffiXm) 25' 
[Siiyd<TTiit), Ca7' CO priuce's daughter,' S euyarep 
NaSdiS, A 0vy. 'Apupadi^). 

5. TCJ (As.syr. »i«.«Ak), from root idj 'install ' (cf. 

Ps 2« pT'jy -j^D 'rirpj 'I have installed my king 
upon Zion'), occurs 4 times in OT : Jos 13"' 'the 
princes (AV 'dukes,' LXX HpxafTa [but the Gr. 
text is confused]) of Sihon'; Ezk 32-* 'the princes 
(d,/xoi'Tts) of the north'; Mic 5'>''' 'eight pnnciiial 
men ' (o-x ■:•-}, RVm 'princes among men,' LXX 
5rr)ixaTa avBptlnrap) ; Ps 83'- 1"' ' make their princes 
(I C'3"}, see above ; LXX dpxoirfs) like Zebah and 
Zalmunna.' In Dn 11* on";'?;, which is rendered in 
AV and RV^m 'their princes,' is much more likely 
from another Vih a by-form of Tirj, and means ' their 
molten images' (so RV, Oxf. Heb. Lex. etc.; cf. 
LXX and Theod. rd x^i'fin-d). We reach the same 
result by simply changing the Massoretio reading 
to cnTfj. See, further, Bevan, ad lac. 

6.'c-:5-!i::-rs (Ezr 8'"', Est 3'" & ff<) or N.'jSTiv'nK 
(Dn 3"- 5- ■-'' 6^- ■*• »■ '■ «) is uniformly rendered by RV 
satraps, while AV gives ' lieutenants ' in the pas- 
sages in Ezra and Esther, ' princes ' in those in 
Daniel. See art. Lieutenant. 

7. C"?y'''^ in Ps 6S*'i'-l is rendered by both A\' 
and RV 'princes.' The LXX has wpiapa's 'am- 
bassadors,' Vulg. legati ; but all these renderings 
are purely conjectural, founded upon the context. 
Probably we ought, with Nestle {.JBL, 1891, p. 
152), to emend to D'jrifs ' they shall come with 
oils or ointments' (so Duhm, et al.). 

8. c-j:^3 is rendered ' princes ' in AV of Job 12", 
but there is no reason for departing from the usual 
meaning 'priests' (so RV, LaX iepeis). 

9. c";:? Is 41"° 'he (Cyrus) shall come upon 
princes (RV 'rulers,' RVm 'deputies') as upon 
mortar.' The LXX lias dpxo'^ft. Scganhn (found 
only in the plural) is a loan-word from the 
Assyrian, where it appears as mknu 'prefect' of 
a conquered city or province. For the other OT 
uses and the later meanin" of sCgdnim see art. 
Priests and Levites, p. 96''. 

10. c';n-)5, a Persian loan-word, probablj- =/ra- 
tama, ' lirst,' occurs 3 times: Dn P "certain of 
the cliildren of Israel, even of the seed royal and 
of the nobles ' (AV 'princes ' ; LXX (k tCiv iirCKiKTav, 
Theod. B airb rCir <t>opOofiiieii', A . . . TropOo,utielv, 
Symm. and Pesh. tr. 'Parthians ') ; Est H (AV 
and RV ' nobles,' || ony ; LXX lySoioi); & 'one of 
the king's most noble princes' (cpn-ifri tj^eh n^'p ej-n, 
LXX fvl Tu)V (^i\wv TOV /iaiT^Xeuis twv 4vo6^ii)v). 

11. ]'¥[; ( = Arab, kd/li. from hirjri ' to decide,' ' to 
pronounce a sentence') is a term used of both 
military and civil leaders: Jos 10** ('the chiefs 
of the men of war'), Jg ll'- " (of Jephtliah), Pr 6' 
(in a saying about the ant, joined with loy and 
Vj=), Is 1'" 3"-' 2-2". The OT passages where it is 
tr. ' prince ' in A V are : Pr 25'° ' By lon^ forbear- 
ing IS a prince (RV 'ruler,' RVm 'judge') per- 
suaded ' (LXX iv fiaKpoSvpilf evo5ia jia<Ti\eO<rtv ; there 
api)ears to be no sufficient reason for Toy's and 
I'rankenberg's emendation of the last two words 
of the MT I'sj HP"; to ivf) Dpifi; or "jxp '^■; ' is anger 
[or an angry man] pacified ') ; Mic 3'- ' ' ye princes 
(RV 'rulers') of the house of Israel' (LXX ol 
KaTdXoiiroi ; in both verses || c-px-; 'heads') ; Dn H" 
'a iirince(RVm 'captain') shall cause the reproach 
offered by him to ce.ase.' The reference is to 
the Roman general Lucius Scipio who defeated 
Antiochus the Great at Magnesia, R.C. 190 (see 
Bevan, ad he). There is nothing in Theod. or 
the LXX text here corresponding to the word ['Vj. 

12. 13. 31, which is especially familiar as the 
first part of otlicial titles like Rab-mao, Rab- 
saris, Rah-shakeii (see the artt. on these names), 
is twice tr. 'prince' in AV : Jer 39" 41' of the 
ririnces (RV 'chief oflicers')of the king of Baby 
ton ; LXX in the first passage [46'] riyep-ivei, in 
the second the term is dropped. In Dn 4''<''' 
51. 2.s.». 10. » gisini the form l?-|3T occurs. Both 
AV and RV render uniformly by 'lords' except 
in 5'- • where A V has ' princes ' ; flieod. has pLcyi- 




arayes in every instance, so LXX in 5™ and 6" <">, 
om. in the other passages. 

H. 15. I'm. (cf. the proper name Rezon, 1 K 11") 
only Pr 14^ 'in the want of people is the destruc- 
tion of the prince' (LXX SmdaTys) ; elsewhere [I'l, 
namely Jg 5' ' Give ear, ye princes ' (B ffaTodwai, 
A adds Siiuarol), Vs 2' (ipxofTes, AV and RV 
'rulers'), Pr S'" (Svvd<rrai) 31^ Hab 1" {ripayvoi), 
Is 40" {S.pxofTes). In all these passages jHit or jh 
is I1 1|^5 ' king,' except in the last, where q'JIT is II 
P.N 'oEb" 'judges of the earth.' Cf. Arab, razin, 
' grave,' ' steady,' from razuna, ' to be hea\'y.' 

16. »•'?¥• is once (Ezk 23") tr. ' prince.' A better 
rendering would be 'officer' or 'captain.' The 
word, which means literally ' third ' (cf. the LXX, 
but not in above passage, TpicrrdTTjs), is usually 
explained to have denoted originally the man 
who, in addition to the driver, stood beside the 
king on his war-chariot, holding his shield or the 
like. But the adequacy of this as an explanation 
of the general usage of the term is questioned by 
Dillniann (on Ex 14'), Kraetzschmar (' Ezechiel' in 
Nowack's JSdkomm.), and others. Kraetzschmar 
prefers to make the meaning simply third in 
military rank (comparing the obsolete titles ' first 
lieutenant,' ' second lieutenant '), or to regard 
shalish as a loan - word. The term occurs fre- 
quently elsewhere in OT in the same sense (e.g. 
Ex 14^ 15^ 2 K 9^ 10» 15^, AV and RV always 
' captain '). 

In the NT the terms rendered in AV 'prince' 
are 1. apxTV^s : — Ac 3" ' ye kUled the Prince ( AVm 
and RVm ' Author ') of life.' ' Author ' appears to 
be the better rendering here (cf. He 2'° ' the author 
[AVm and RVm ' captain '] of their salvation '). 
The only other instance where dpxvy^' is tr. 
'prince' (AV and RV) is Ac 5^' 'Him did God 
3xalt with his right hand to be a Prince and a 
Saviour.' The Gr. term occurs once more in NT, 
namely in He 12- ' Jesus the author (AVm ' be- 
ginner,' RVm 'captain') and finisher (RV 'per- 
lecter') of our faith,' where the meaning is prob- 
ably 'leader' or ' antcsignanus.' 2. S.px'^"- Mt 9** 
12-'^ Mk 3=2 of (Beelzebub) 'the prince of the 
demons'; Mt 20'-^ 'the princes of the GentUes,' 
cf. 1 Co '2'- ^ ' the princes of this world ' (el ipxomes 
Tov aliixo! ToijTov) ; Jn 12" \i^ 16" ' the prince of 
this world ' [i ipxi^v toO Klia/iov toittou) ; Epli 2- ' the 
prince of the power of the air ' (6 ipx^f t^s ^fowrfas 
ToD ddpos ; on this expression see art. SATAN) ; 
Rev 1° ' the Prince of the kings of the earth ' (6 
&PX<ov Tuv ^aaCKiwv t^s 7^5, probably a reminiscence 
of Ps 89(88)^). 3. rrtepLihv is tr. 'prince' only in 
Mt 2" ' thou art not the least among the princes 
of Judah.' On the surprising variations between 
St. Matthew's quotation and the original passage 
Mic 5', and the possible explanation of these, see 
art. Quotations, L d. J. A. Selbik. 

PRINCESS.— See Prince, No. 2, ad Jin. 

PRINCIPALITY.— In Jer 13" nSotiiD (from e».-!-i 
the head) is tr. 'principalities,' apparently in the 
sense of privilege, pre-eminence, as in Jer. Taylor, 
Worthy Communicant, i. 83, ' If any mystery, rite, 
or sacrament be effective of any si)ii itual blessings, 
then this is much more, as having the prerogative 
and illustrious principality above everything else.' 
This is better than the tr. ' from your head ' or 
' from your heads' of the previous versions (Vulg. 
de captte vestro, LXX dird it€(^aX^s i/iwi') ; but the 
meanmg is evidently, as in AVm and RV, ' head- 

In 2 Mac 4" 5' the high priesthood is called the 
'principalitj-,' i.e. principal olEce or supreme power 
I'i/'X'))- Cf. Jliltoii, Reform, ii. 'The Bishoi)s of 
Rome and Alexandria, who beyond their Priestly 
bounds now long agoe had stept into principality.' 

For the ' principalities ' {apxat) of Ro S", Eph 1" 
{ipx-^, RV ' rule ^) 3'° 6'», Col 2i»- ", Tit 3' (RV 
'rulers'), see Dominion in vol. i. p. 616'. 

J. Hastings. 

PRINCIPLE.— See Element in vol. i. p. 082'. 

PRISCA or PRISCILLA {Upl<rm, Upl<rKi\\a).— 
The wife of Aquila. The name is Latin, PrisciUa 
being the diminutive form. In the three places in 
Acts where the word is used (IS''" '*i^''), the form is 
always Priscilla ; in the three places in St. Paul's 
Epistles (Ro 16», 1 Co IG'", 2 Ti 4'") it is in the best 
MSS always Prisca. In Ac 18'8-», Ro 16^ ■-' Ti 4" 
tlie wife's name appears first, in the other two 
places the husband s. 

There U some variatioD io the MSS &nd VSS. In Ac 18^ 
KABE vulg. boh. read Xlp.rxikXa «»; ' A«;xai ; DHLP, etc., gig, 
syrr, sah. read'A«. ««; Tlf. In Ro lO^ and 2 Ti -lis the evi- 
dence for Tlpio^m is prepondemting ; in 1 Co l&^ llainut. is read 
by kBMP ™1k. codd., boh. arm. ; no.o-»-Wi« by ACDEFOKL 
and most later MSS, \iilg. codd., syrr, Chrys., Thdrt., Dam. and 
TR ; the former reading is undoubtedly riylit. In 2 Ti i^s 
there is acurious addition after '* in 46, lUO. and 1U9 l^t. 
AlKTpait (sic) rr,t yvvattuc tLvrcv Juti ^fJ.aLiet9 (sic) xcti Z*i>^.« rtif 

The variations in the text of Ac 18'-^ have been examined 
ver.v carefully by Harnack, who shows that the longer text 
(usually called the Western, or by Blass ,i) is clearly formed 
out of the shorter, and suj^gests that it has been modified by 
an interpolator who objected to the too ^reat prominence ^ven 
to a woman, and has made the position of PrisciUa less pro- 
minent. With liis conclusion we may compare the remarks of 
Ramsay {Church in the Roman Empire, p. 101) on the omission 
of Damaris in the AVestern text, Ac 173-*. 

Prisca is always mentioned with her husband. 
He is described as a Jew of Pontus, and a tent- 
maker. St. Paul is a-ssociated with them first at 
Corinth, whither they had retired after the decree 
expelling the Jews from Rome. After remaining 
there about eighteen months, they went with St. 
Paid to Ephesus, and remained there while he went 
on to Jerusalem. At Ephesus they were concerned 
in the instruction of Apollos, and seem to have re- 
mained throughout St. Paul's residence, their house 
being used for Christian meetings. Later, probably 
in consequence of the uproar in the theatre, when 
there seem to have been considerable riots, they 
returned to Rome, where again their house was 
used for Christian worship: and ultimately weagain 
find them at Epliesus. These numerous changes 
between Rome, Ephesus, and Corinth have caused 
difficulty to critics, who have for this and other 
causes suggested that Ro 16 was really addressed 
to Ephesus. A sufficient explanation is, however, 
afl'orded by the nomadic character of the Jewish 
world in general, of Aquila and Priscilla in par- 
ticular, and by their occupation as Christian 
missionaries interested in the spread and support 
of the Christian Churches. They were evidently 
persons of prominence in the earl3- Christian com- 
munity. St. Paul speaks of them with atlection, 
and saj-s that they had endangered their lives for 
his sake (Ro 16^). 

The above is all that we learn from the New 
Testament, but the traditions of the Roman 
Church, where the n.ame Prisca was of con.sider- 
able importance, suggest the possibility of some 
interesting discoveries being made. The name 
occurs in two connexions. 

(1) There is a church on the Aventine bearin" 
the name of St. Prisca which jrivcs a title to one of 
the Rom.'in cardinals. This churcli bore the name 
of the TitidiiK St. PrUrae from the 4th to the 8th 
cent. (Lilier Pontifinli.t, ed. Duchesne, i. 501, 
517") ; later, under Leo III. (795-816), it is called 
the Titulus Aquilae ct Prixcne (ih. ii. 20). There 
are legendarj' Arti of St. Pri.<!in, dating from the 
loth cent., in which it is stated that the liody of 
St. Prisca was translated from the place on the 
Ostian Way where she had bcHU buricil and trans- 
ferred to the Church of St. Aquila and Prisca oa 




the .\vt'ntine {Acta Sam-torum, Jan. ii. i). 187). 
An inscription of the 10th cent. {C. Inn. Christ, u. 
p. 443) also calls it domus AijuUae scu Priscne. 

(2) In the legendary acconnt of Piulens, Puden- 
ziana, and Praxedis, Priscilla is stated to have Ijeen 
the mother of Pudens (Ada Sanct. May, iv. 295). 

(3) One of the oldest of the catacombs of Rome 
is the Ccemcterium Priscillae, outside the Porta 
Solaria, and there seems to he some evidence to 
connect the name Prisca with the Acilian gens, 
members of wliich were buried there. 

Now it has been noticed that the name Prisca 
in four out of six places is mentioned before that 
of her husband. Hort, following out this point, 
suggests that she was a member of a distinguished 
Roman family who had married a Jew. This would 
account both for the prominence given to her, and 
the connexion of the name with one of the oldest 
cemeteries. A more plausible suggestion is that 
both Prisca and Aquila were freedmen of the 
Acilian or some other gens ; that through them 
Christianity had reached a distinguished Roman 
family, whose name they had taken, and that 
this accounted for the prominence of the name in the early Church. More discovery and 
investigation are needed, but the point of interest 
is that the name Prisca in some way or other 
occupied a prominent position in the Rora. Church. 

An intereating su^estion. which has the merit of novelty. 
bu Ijeen miule by Professor Harnack, tlmt in Priscilla and 
Ac^ulla we have the authors of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
Pnsca and Aquila were, we know, teachers of prominence who 
had turned Apollos to Christianity ; they belonged to the 
Intimate circle of SU Paul's friends ; tlicy were close friends of 
Timothy, and personally received St. Paul. They had for some 
time been connected with a small ChriHtian community in 
Rome, and the Epistle to the Hebrews waji clearly, he ar^es, 
written to Rome, and not to the Church as a whole, but to a 
small circle within the Churcii. They were with Italian con- 
nections, but living outside Italy. In the Ejiistle there is a 
curious interchange of ' We * and ' I.' Lastly, the authorship of 
Priscilla will explain why the writing is now anonjinous. The 
Church of the 2nd cent, objected very stronjfly to the prominent 
position of women in the Apostolic age. This had caused the 
gradual modification of various passages in the Acts, and the 
desire to separate this work from the name of Priscilla. The 
whole argument is as ingenious as Professor Harnack always is, 
but it does not succeed in being quite convincing. 

LlTBRATORl.— De Rossi, B\M. Arch. Chritt. Ser. L No. 6 
(1887), p. 45 ff., Ser. Iv. No. 6 (18S8-S9), p. 120; Duchesne, Lt*er 
PontificaiU \ Hort, Roin. and Eph. pp. 12-14; Plumptre, 
Biblirat Studies, p. 417 ; Sanday-IIeadlam, Homana, pp. x.wii, 
418 fl. ; liarosay, St. Paul the TTamller, 2(i8 f. ; Hiiniack, 
SitzunQgberichte der K. Frewfttichen Akadeini« der M'i^sen- 
tcha/ten. 1(KX), i., and Zeitgchrift fur die iieutestameiUlicUe 
Wiuentchaft und die Kunde det Urchrittentmm, 1900, p. 10. 

A. C. 

PRISON. — Joseph wa.s imprisoned in an Egyp- 
tian pri.son (vc? n-j, perhaps ' of enclosure,' 
i,e. walled, or ' fortress,' cf. cognate Syriac nmno 
'palace,' and Targumic ino 'to go round,' 'sur- 
round ' ; 6xi<p'^iia, SeffiiuT^piov ; career, custoilia, Gn 
39-.«-» 403.8 [jEj. gXio iu 'pit,' EV 'dungeon'; 
Xdxxot, ixiV^Mo ; lacus, career, Gn 40" 41''' [JE] ; in 
40", c-rjsn %■ n-j ' house of the captain of the execu- 
tioners,' i.e. the guard). ' Fortress ' suggests the use, 
always common, of fortresses as prisons ; ' house 
of the captain of the guard ' suggests that the care 
of prisoners waa one of the duties of that oflicial. 
Ebers, A^gypten, p. 317 fl'., identities this 'fort- 
ress' with that at Memphis, mentioned in inscrip- 
tions as the 'White Wall'; see, further, art. 
Joseph in vol. ii. p. 708", note ||. In Egypt, in 
addition to the royal prisons, the great temples 
had prisons of their own (Erman, Life, etc. p. 304). 
Imprisonment is mentioned as a penalty ; and the 
great gold and other mines of Ethiopia and Sinai, 
which were worked by convicts and cjiptives under 
conditions of barbarous cruelty, were re.illy vast 
prisons (Masncro, Daton, etc. 337). Joseph'sbreth- 
ren are said (Gn 42"->') to have been kept in 
custody, Tyy'I?, ipvXaK-^. 

Samson was imprisoned by the Philistines in a 

D"!!3.x.7 n'5 (Kt. 0"!T><) 'house of those who are 
bound,' ouos toO Sea/xorrripiov, career, Jg 16"'-^. The 
terms n^-j (n-j), n-^j '2, m'?? 'a ' house of conlinement,' 
<pv\aK-/i, are used of the places of imprisonment of 
Micaiah, 1 K 22-'' ; Ho.shea (in Assyria), 2K \'' ; 
Jehoiachin (in Babylon), 2 K 25^ ; and Jeremiah, 
Jer 37*' " etc.; in Is 42"-**. Jeremiah's place 
of confinement is also called .tie? 'place of guard,' 
0i;Xoin), career; and tcn n'3, 37'° = on)r,'<n n'3 (see 
above, Samson). In 2 Ch 16">, Jer 29-'', n'r^rro (.\V 
' prison,' 0i;\oK7)), etc., should be 'stocks.' Zedekiah 
was imprisoned at Babylon in a ^~P^^ n'3 'liouse of 
inspection,' oUia, tivXun'os, domo cnreeris, Jer 52". 
Other terms used are ipo 'enclosure,' ixvpatxa, 
(jiv\aK-fi, etc. career, Ps 142', Is 24-- 42'; if;, rallier 
'oppression,' Is 53'; -1-^!? = ' ward, custody,' Gn 
42'". 'Prison' is supplied in Is 61'. The case of 
Samson suggests buildings like the Roman ergn.s- 
tulum, in which malefactors and slaves were con- 
Cued and kept at work. Jeremiah's prison was 
at one time part of the palace, 32-, cf. 37^', I K 22-'', 
Nell 3^, 2 K 25-'' ; at another a private house, 
Jer 37". As .til-? in Jer 32- = ' guardhouse,' it seems 
that the care of prisoners was one of the duties of 
the body-guard, and that the prisoners were con- 
fined in rooms attached to their quarters. The 
' pit ' (I'la, Jer 38^-", cf. Gn 37=") may have been an 
empty cistern, or possibly an oubliette. 

Our available evidence points to places of conline- 
ment being parts of palaces, temples, fortresses, 
etc., rather than special buildings set apart for 
the purpose. For the crimes punished by con- 
linement, and the conditions and treatment of 
prisoners, see Crimes and Punishments in vol. i. 
p. 525, .?. ' Imprisonment.' 

In NT, John the Baptist (Mt 14' etc.), Peter 
(Ac 5" etc.), Paul and Silas (l(i-^ etc.), and otheis 
were confined in a tpvKaK-i) ' prison, place of guard- 
ing'; John (Mt 11-), Paul, etc. (Ac 16=") in a 
5(j nijjT-tipiov ' prison,' ' place of bonds.' The apostles 
(Ac 5^'''-°) Mere confined in the Seaixur-fipiov, also 
T-fip-riaii (5'") ' place of keeping.' In Ac 12' otKij/xa 
'house,' is tr" 'prison.' According to Jos. {Ant. 
XVIII. v. 2), John was imprisoned at tlie royal 
fortress of Macluerus. The prison at Jerusalem 
mentioned in Ac 5 was under the control of the 
priests, and probably attached to the temple or the 
high {)riest's palace. Paul was imprisoned in the 
fort Antonia (Ac 23"') at Jerusalem, in the Praj- 
toriiim (or Palace) of Herod at Ca'sarea (Ac 23**). 
At Rome he was .allowed to live in his 'own hired 
house ' (Ac 2S™), doubtless in charge of a soldier. 
Before his trial, however, he may have been trans- 
ferred to prison, perhaps the career specially so 
called (named in mediieval times Mamertiinis), and 
consisting of a, larger oblong upjier storey and a 
smaller circular underground dungeon — the Tulli- 
anum. This career may ha\e been Paul's place 
of conlinement in his second imprisonment. Cf. 
•Career' in Smith's Dii't. of Cl'i.s\i. Antiquities. 

On ' the spirits in prison ' of 1 I* 3'" see vol. i. 
p. 754* and vol. iii. p. 7t)5. W. H. BENNETT. 

PRIYY. PRIVILY.— These words, which came 
into the I'ng. language through the Old Fr. j'rive, 
have now been displaced (except in some com- 
pounds) by 'private,' 'privately,' which were 
taken direct from the Lat. privatii.i, and which 
are found in AV. Cf. Mk 4-'' Tind. 'There 
is nothinge so jirevy tlmt shall not bo opened' 
(AV nothing hid which shall not be manifested'); 
Jn 7" Tind. 'Then went he also up unto the feast; 
not openly, but as it were nrevely ' (AV 'in secret'); 
ErasiiniH, Ex/xi-^ition of the Crcdc, ' By the spirits 
he doth understand and mcano privye or secrete 
grace of faytlie' ; More, Utopia, 43, ' Howe should 
a man, that in no parte of his apparell is like 
other men, flye prevelie and unknowen !' 





To be privy to a thing (1 K 2**, Ac 5') is simply 
to have a knowledge of it. C£. Calderwood, 
llistori, of the Churck of Scotland, 140, ' Argile 
came to St. Andrews the day following, privie, 
as ap]ieared, to the purpose ' ; Bishops' Bible, Ps 
19" ' \Vho can knowe his owne errours ? Oh dense 
thou me from those tliat I am not privie of ' ; 
Spenser, Shep. Cal. viii. 153 — 

* Te carelesse bjrds are privie to my cries. 

J. Hastings. 

PROCHORUS (Ilpixopos). — One of the 'seven' 
appointed, Ac 6". Later tradition made him bishop 
ol Nicomedia, and a martyr at Antiooh. He was 
commemorated by the Latins on April 9, by the 
tJreeks on July 28. See Baronius, i. ad ann. 44 ; 
Acta Sanctorum, Ap., i. S18. There is published 
in Magna Bibliutheca Patrum, Colon. Agr. 1618, 
i. 49-t)9, a spurious Historia Prochori, Christi 
Discipuli, de vita B. loannis Apostoli. 

A. C. Headlam. 

PROCONSUL (Lat. proconsul; Gr. avduTraTos).— 
The technical term for the governor of a senatorial 
province, used Ac 13'*-'' of Sergius Paiilus in 
Cyprus; IS'- of Gallio at Corinth; IQ^* of the 
governors of Asia. Some little difficulty has been 
elt by the use of the plural in the last case, but 
it quite normally expresses what is habitual : * H 
any man has a definite charge, there are law courts 
and judges,' as we should say. The proconsuls 
were of two classes — those who were ex-consuls, 
viz. the rulers of Asia and Africa, wlio were 
therefore correctly (according to republican usage) 
proconsuls, and those who were only ex-praetors. 
For fuller details see under Province. 

A. C. Headlam. 

PROCURATOR.— The technical terra to describe 
the ofhce held by Pontius Pilate and the other 
governors of Jud:ea. The word means originally 
a baUiff or steward ; under the empire it was used 
for the imperial officials, sometimes of equestrian 
rank, sometimes only freedmen, who were appointed 
in the provinces to collect the imperial revenue or 
fiscus. In imperial provinces they managed the 
whole of the revenue ; in senatorial provinces, 
where there were quasstors, only that part which 
belonged to the emperor. Even in senatorial pro- 
vinces their authority had a tendency gradually to 
increase, and they obtained judicial powers in 
revenue cases ; but in addition to that there were 
certain provinces which were governed directly by 
a procurator, who possessed all the powers ot an 
ordinary governor. The provinces so governed were 
usually those in a tran.«itional state — provinces 
whicli had not been thoroughly romanized, and 
were passing from the rule of one of the reqes socii 
to the conditions of a province. The following pro- 
vinces were governed in this way (at any rate at 
certain periods) : — Mauritania, liha^tia, Noricum, 
Thrace, Cappadocia, the Maritime Aljis, the Alps 
of Savoy, and Juda?a. These provinces, governed 
by procurators, were in some sense subordinate to 
the governor of the neighbouring province : for 
instance, Cappadocia was subordinate to Galatia, 
and Judaea to Syria. With this limitation, the 
procurator had the full power of the governor. 
He commanded such troops as were within bis pro- 
vince, he held the power of life and death, and full 
judicial, administrative, and financial authority. 

The technical term in connexion with Juda'a is 
given in Tacitus, Annal. xv. 44 : Christus Tibcrio 
imperitante per procurntorem Pontium Pilatum 
supplicio ndfcctus est. The proper Greek transla- 
tion would be eiriTpowos, but in the NT we find the 
vaguer term riytfuiv. which might include rultrs of 
sther categories (Mt 2T-- "• "• '»■ "• -'' 28", Lk 3' 2u-», 
Ac 23-"- '^- ^ --M'- '" 2G*'). In Josephus we find both 
triTporot and rjyepiuv. A. C. HeADLAM. 

PROFANE The Eng. word comes from Lat. 

pro/amis (through Fr. profane), which is taken to 
oe pro 'before' and finuin 'the temple,' hence 
outside the temple limits," outside the limits of 
that which is holy, unholy, secular, t 

The incorrect spellint?pro^fta/i€ became common in the 16tb 
cent., and is the spelling in the 1011 ed. of AV everywhere 
except Ezk 2333- 39, 1 Mac 351, 2 Mac (i^, Ac 246. 

Tlie Heb. word so tr'' in AV is S'rn to pollute, 
with its derivatives Sn pollution, and "^^ici (adj.) 
polluted. Once also (Jer 23") the verb [ijn], and 
once (Jer 23") its deriv. n?jq are tr^ '[is] profane' 
and ' profaneness.' AVm gives 'hypocrisy' in the 
second passage, Anier. RV prefers ' ungodliness.' 
In Greek, the verb is ^e^riXiu and the adj. jiifirjXoi. 
The subst. ^f^TiXao-ts is thrice (Jth 4»- '^, I Mac 1«) 
tr'* ' profanation.' The ptcp. dTroSiearaX/i^i'os is also 
tr'' ' profane ' in 2 Mac 6* (RV ' abominable '). In 
2 Mac 4" the subst. tr'' ' profaneness ' is d^a-zi-cio. 
Finally in 2 Es we find the vb. profanare ti^ ' to 
profane' (10--), and the adv. irreligiose tr^ 'pro- 
fanely' (15'). See Unclean, Uncleanness. 

J. Hastings. 

PROFESS, PROFESSION.— The verb to 'pro- 
fess ' and tlie subst. ' profession ' have acquired 
a narrow ' professional ' meaning ; in AV they 
still have the sense of ' speak out,' ' declare 
openly ' (from profteri, ptcp. professus). Thus Dt 
26' ' I profess this day unto the Lord thy God, 
that I am come unto the country which the Lord 
sware unto our fathers for to give us' ('n-;;.!) ; 
Mt 7^ ' And then will I profess unto them, I 
never knew you' (o/jLoXoyfiaa avroU) ; 1 Ti 6'^ ' Thou 
hast professed a good profession before man}' wit- 
nesses ' (u)fio\6yT)aa.t ttjv KaXrjv dfj.o\oyiav, RV 'didst 
confess the good confession ') ; He 3' ' Consider the 
Apostle and High Priest of our profession ' {ttjs 
ofioXoylas rj/iiov, RV ' of our confession,' that is, 
says Rendall, 'whom our Christian confession of 
faith acknowledges in this character'). 

J. Hastings. 

PROGNOSTICATOR.-In Is 47" the ' monthly 
prognosticators' (Cv'^J" D7"'id, AVm 'that give 
knowledge concerning the months') are mentioned 
along witii the 'astrologers' and the 'star-gazers' 
as unable to help B.iliylon in her hour of need. 
The meaning of c';h-'- is probably ' at (the) new 
moons,' the reference being to the forecasts which 
it was usual to make at that season of what was 
likely to happen during tlie coming month. The 
lucky and unlucky days of each month were duly 
noted in the Assyrian and Babylonian calendars, 
and reports were given in monthly by the official 
astronomers and astrologers (cf. Sayce in 2'SBA 
iii. p. 229, and see also art. ASTROLOGY in vol. L 
p. 194'). The LXX has nothing answering to 
' miinllihj proiinosticators,' the text reading in such 
a way that the 'astrologers' are called on to stand 
forth and save their votaries, and the ' star-gazers ' 
are challenged to make known (avaY/eiXiTuaav, 
representing somehow o-yniD) what is going to 
happen. J. A. Selbie. 

PROLOGUE.— The Book of Sirach opens with a 
preface by the author's grandson, which bears in 
BA the title irpbXoyoi (C irp. ~ipix< S om.). For its 
contents see art. .Sirach. The opening verses of 
the Fourth Gospel are also frequently called the 
Prologue to that Gospel. See John (Gospel of). 

PROMISE. — The word 'promise' is used in Scrip- 
ture with the same latitude as in language gener- 
ally, but the present art. takes account only of 

• Cf. Ezk 4220 ' to make a separation between the sanctuary 
and the profane place.' 

t Cf. Tj-mnie's tr. of Calvin's (JenegU, on iV ' ^^^len Jacob il 
8ai<le to blesse the kin^, Moses ther<:'by meaneth not a coDimon 
and prophane salutation, but a godlie and bolie prayer a t th«. 
servant of God.' 




the technical or semi-techaical sense of it wliich 
comes into view when we read of 'the promise' 
without any qualification. God is tlie autlior of 
the promise, and it is spontaneously put forth on 
His part ; this is what is signihed by (Ta~c/i\\ta6ai 
as opjiosed to uTi(rx''"<^S<", the latter signifying to 
come under an obligation, as part of a contract. 
The promise was originally given to Abraham ; 
and though, in its largest scope, it covers the 
whole future guaranteed to him by God, it is 
delined at ditlerent times in ditt'erent ways. Some- 
times the thing promised is the possession of a 
country — Canaan is ' the land of the promise ' (He 
11"); sometimes it is the birth of a son or of a 
numerous posterity, a seed like the stars of heaven 
or the dust of the earth (Gn 13'« 15')— Isaac is the 
first of 'the children of the promise' (IloSJ") ; more 
generally it is a divinely-secured greatness and 
felicity ho conspicuous that all nations will make 
it a standard of congratulation (Gn 12-'). The 
OT, though the promises of God may be said to be 
the contents of His covenant (so that St. Paul 
Bpeaks of ' the covenants of the promise,' Kph 2'^), 
dx)e8 not make much use of this category to inter- 
pret the experience of Israel. The future of the 
nation does depend on God, but it is seldom related 
to His 'promise' in the technical sense with which 
we are here concerned. There is an approach to 
the general idea in Jer 29" ' I know the thoughts 
that I think toward you, saith the Lord, thoughts 
of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a 
hope.' This conception of some good unrealized, 
but to be realized tlirough faith in tlie sure word of 
God, is what is meant by the promise. But there 
is a nearer approach still to the technical sense 
in I's 1U5" ' He remembered his holy word, and 
Ahrahiini his servant.' The whole future of Israel, 
all tlie deliverances wrouglit for it, are here con- 
ceived as bound up in sometliing which God said 
to Abraham ; the history of the nation is tlie 
revelation of what was involved in the primitive 
proi ise, and not only its revelation but its fullil- 
nieiit. It is a witness to God's faithfulness to His 

It is at this point that the NT takes up the idea. 
We see in the Magnifcnt and in the llcm-i/iittis 
how pious souls in Israel were preoccupied with it : 
' He iiath holpen Israel his servant that he might 
rememher mercy (as he spake unto our fnthrcs) 
toward Ahrahmn and his seed for ever' (Lk 1^'-, 
cf. v." ' the oath which he sware unto Abraham our 
father,' eU:.). In NT times, however, the signih- 
cance of the promise was determined ex eventu ; 
it had been at last fulhlled in Christ, and it was 
by lookin" at Christ that men discovered what it 
meant. ' For how many soever are the promises of 
God [the sejiarate ble.ssinL'S into which the one all- 
embracing f7ra77«\(a can lie resolved] in him is the 
Yea,' that is, the Divine conlirniation and fullil- 
ment of them all (2 Co l**). The substance of NT 
teaching on this subject can be arranged under heads: (1) the contents of the promise; (2) 
the heirs of it ; (3) the conditions of its fullilment. 
(1) The contents of the promise are always re- 
lated to Christ, but they are dehned in various 
ways under the influence of various 01' ideas. 
Sonietinies the original idea of a 'country of our 
own' reajipcars, a liind in which we shall not be 
strangers and pilgrims as on earth, 'a city with 
foundations,' rather 'the city with the founda- 
tions,' a rest like the Sabbatli rest of God, into 
which we may enter after we have traversed the 
wildLrness, an eternal inheritance. This may be 
said to be the asiicel of the ]promise which |iervades 
the Epistle to the Hebrews. See He 1 1"'" 4",l'». 
In the preachiii'' of St. I'eter, as we find it in the 
early chapters of Acts, it is the Uisen .(esus, made 
by God ' both Lord and Christ,' in whom the promise 

has been fnllilled, and its contents may be said to 
be mainly the two divinely bestowed possessions 
of the Christian Church — the forgiveness of sins 
and the gift of the Holy (Jhost. The latter is 
specially spoken of as ' the promise of the Father' 
(Lk 24'^ Ac 1'); Jesus has received from the 
Father ' the promise of the Spirit '(Ac 2^), and it is 
with this in view that St. Feter says, ' the promise 
is unto you and your children ' (2^'). There is no 
doubt here a reference to the fact that Jesus had 
promised to send the Spirit to His disciples ; but 
the last passage quoted shows how this special 
promise of Jesus coalesced in the apostle's mind 
with the great Messianic promises m which the 
future of Israel was assured. — Wlien we |)ass to 
St. I'aul we hnd at hrst a general concei)tion of the 
same character. The promise made to the fathers 
God has fulfilled in all its import {(KTmr\ripo>K(v, Ac 
13^) by raising up Jesus — tlie raising u|i having 
reference either to the bringing of Jesus on to the 
stage of history, or to the Resurrection ; in either 
case it is 'according to promise' that God has 
' brought to Israel the Saviour .lesus' (Ac 13'-^). At 
a mucTi later date, as he stands before Agrippa, St. 
Paul can represent himself as invohed in such ' 
troubles ' for the hope of the promise made by God 
to our fathers '(Ac 20", cf. 2.S-" ' for the hope of Israel 
I am bound with this chain '). The hope of Isr.-iel, 
all that God has promised to do for it, is in these 
passages regarded as bound up in the Uisen and 
K.xalled Jesus. What the content of that hope is, 
it would require an exposition of all the apostle's 
theology to show ; for Christ and the promise are 
practically synonymous terms. All that is in 
Christ is meant by the promise ; all the promises 
of God are summed up in Christ. Special aspects 
of this are set in relief by St. Paul as by other NT 
writers. Thus he speaks of Christians as sealed 
with the Holy Spirit of the promise (Kph 1"), and 
as receiving tlie of the Spirit through faith 
(Gal '6^'). The gift of the Spirit has something of in it ; it is the earnest of a heavenly 
inheritance, an inheritance with the saints in the 
light (Eph 1", Col 1'^); as the spirit of sonship it 
is the assurance that we are joint heirs with 
Christ, and shall j'et be conformed to the image of 
God's exalted Son (Uo 8'°'"), and have an entrance 
into that kingdom of God which for St. Paul is 
always a transcendent and glorious mode of being. 
In Gal 3 'the promise of the Siiirit,' or the Spirit 
as the essential blessing of the ]jromise, has its 
]ieculiar value in this, that it is the principle of a 
new life and righteousness to which sinful men 
could never attain on any other terms. — Other 
references to the promise in the NT ire more 
dubious, though Tit 1- Ja 1'- '2' (the crown of life, 
the kiiigdiiiii which God hath promised to then, 
that h>ve Him) are in the line of that conception 
of the ]>romise which was common to St. Paid with 
all primitive Christians. On the other hand, a 
distinctively Johannine thonght has availed itself 
of this mode of expression in 1 Jn 2^. 

(2) The second question concerns the heirs of the 
promise: to whom is it given'.' It was given at 
first to Abraham, or to Abraham and his seed. 
Is!i;h' and Jacob were ' heirs with him of the same 
promise '(He 11"). It might seem as if 'the .seed 
of Abiaham ' were an expression not capable of 
two interpretations, and yet the |iroper interpreta- 
tion of it was the great subject of in 
the iirimitive Church. Even when the promise was 
seen to be fulhlled in Jesus, it seemed obvious to 
say that it was fuHilled to Israel— that IsrMcl alone 
had a part in it. ICven St. I'aul can siiy that 
Jesus Christ was a minisler of the circumcision, 
on behalf of the truth of God, to lonhrm the 
promises of the fathers, i.e. belonging to th« 
lathers, because made to them (Uo 16"). (n enumer 




atinc^ the prerogatives of Israel, he says frankly, 
'to whom belong the promises' (Ro 9''). In de- 
scribing the pre-Christian condition of a Gentile 
Church he says its members had been ' strangers 
to the covenants of the promise,' ajid therefore 
without hope. No pagan people had that kind of 
assurance as to its own future which pious Israel- 
ites derived from the word of God, and hence the 
pessimism with which paganism generally contem- 
plated the issues of human existence. It was the 
work of St. Paul to show that the promise was not 
subject to physical or historical limitations, and that 
no physical or historical accident, such as Jewish 
birtn or upbringing, could give one a claim as of 
right against God for its fulfilment. The chief pas- 
sages in which he deals with the problem are Gal 3 
and Bo 9-11. In the former he discusses rather 
the conditions on which the promise is inherited, 
to which we shall refer below, and comes to the 
conclusion that all who are Christ's by faith are 
Abraham's seed, the Israel of God, and heirs ac- 
cording to promise. In the latter he is confronted 
with the fact that the promise — to judge by the 
results of his own preaching — is not being fultilled 
• to those to whom it belongs, and is being fultilled 
(according to him) to those to wliom it does not 
belong. What strikes one most in this extra- 
ordinary passage is the extent to which St. Paul's 
heart is on the side of those against whom he 
argues. Thus, after proving in ch. 9 that no man 
can claim unconditionally that God shall fulfil the 
promise to him, and in ch. 10 that the Jews, by 
persistent disobedience, have forfeited all title to be 
counted God's people and the heirs of His promise, 
he falls back in ch. 11 on the abstract theological 
principle tliat the gifts and calling of God are 
\vithout repentance. It is as if he said — After all, 
there is no denying that Israel is God's people. 
God has given them the promise, and He cannot 
deny Himself. In spite of all their unbelief they 
are beloved for the fathers' sakes ; God will 
remember His oath to Abraham, and ' so all Israel 
shall be saved.' Such faith may well seem bewilder- 
ing to Gentiles who calmly assume that the promise 
is their own ab initio, and ignore even the historic 
prerogative of the Jew. But to the last the Jew 
was to St. Paul the root, the first-fruits ; and the 
Gentiles were only avti/iiroxa Tijs iiray-^eXlas (Eph 3'), 
not its original and proper heirs. — In later NT writ- 
ings the echoes of this conflict die away, and the 
scope of the promise is universalized as instinctively 
as Christ is felt to be Lord of all. ' The promise,' in 
short, is a historically conditioned way of conceiv- 
ing the grace of God, and once the critical stage 
had been passed — as it was in St. Paul's lifetime — 
the discussions as to its range lost interest. Men 
could question who were the true heirs of the 
promise, but not under the same forms who were 
the objects of the redeeming love of God in Christ. 
(3) The conditions on which the promise are ful- 
filled are discussed in various connexions. As 
already remarked, the very idea of irayyfXla is 
spontaneity on the part of the promiser. Tlie 
promise is of grace. In Ro 4 and Gal 3 St. Paul 
labours to show that it is subject to no control on 
the part of law, or of works of law. In Galatians 
he gives a historical proof of this. The promise 
was given to Abraham, and to his faith, 430 years 
before the law was heard of ; and this late in- 
trusion of law, whatever it maj' mean, cannot 
mean that we must earn the fulfilment of the 
promise ; if this were the case it would be an 
ira-ryMa — a free spontaneous motion on the part 
of God — no more. In Ro 4 the proof is rather 
speculative or experimental than historical. Cer- 
tain ideas and experiences hang together, and 
certain others do not. Promise, grace, and faith 
are parts of one whole; wages, debt, and works 

are parts of anotlicr wliolc ; but these two wlioles, 
and the parts of them, exclude each other. lienca 
the promise, in all the fulness of its content, ex- 
plained above, is fulfilled, not to works of law, not 
to merit, but to faith in Jesus Christ. All that God 
holds out to us becomes ours as in faith we attach 
ourselves to Him. Where the blessings of salva- 
tion are presented as ' promise,' there is always, 
of course, the suggestion that they are not yet 
realized, and hence faith (when this conception is 
prominent, as in the Epistle to the Hebrews) 
assumes some of the characteristics of hope and of 
patience. We read of those who ' througli faith 
and patience ' inherit the promises ; we have ' need 
of patience' that after ' liaving done the will of 
God' we may receive the promise (He 6" 10**). It 
is part of the heroism of faith that having God's 
promise to go upon it can maintain a strong con- 
viction as to the things it hopes for, and give reality 
to things unseen (He 11'). It is the mark of an 
evil time that scott'ers ask, in regard to the one 
great promise of the NT, roS iarlv i) iirayytXia rrjt 
irapowias aiJToO, 2 P 3*. J. DENNEY. 

PROPER. — Like the Lat. proprium, from which 
it is derived through the Fr. propre, ' proper ' 
means one's ou-n. Thus Udall, Erasmus' Para- 
phrase, i. 77, ' Onely God chaungetli the myndes 
and heartes of riche men, that they ^vill cherefully 
evther cast awaie that which they doe possesse, or 
els possesse them as common and not proper'; 
Tindale, Expositio}is, 124, ' Forsooth I have no 
goods, nor anj'tliin^ proper, or that is mine own ; 
it is the convent's ; Rhem. NT, note on Mt 9* 
' The faithlesse Jewes thought (as Heretikes now 
a daies) that to forgeve sinnes was so proper to 
God, that it could not be communicated unto 
man ' ; and especially Adams, Works, i. 69, ' Sal- 
vation is common, as St Jude speaketh, ver. 3, 
" When I gave all diligence to write unto you of 
the common salvation ; but few make it proper 
to themselves : that God is my salvation and t/it/ 
salvation, this is the comfort.' This meaning 
occurs in AV five times. For 1 Ch 29^ see 
Pecuuar. The other instances are Wis IS-' 
19«, Ac 1", 1 Co V. The Gr. is always Mios. RV 
adds Wis 2^ and Jude' where the Gr. is also 

Another meaning, a derivative of the above, is 
'of good appearance,' 'handsome,' as in Fuller's 
IIoli/ War, ii., ' Wliat a pitie is it to see a proper 
Gentleman to have such a crick in his neck that 
he cannot look backward ' ; and in Holy State, 319, 
of the ' Embas.sadour,' he says ' He is of a proper, 
at least passable person.' This is the sense of 
' proper ' in He 11^ ' By faith Moses, when he was 
born, was hid three months of his parents, be- 
cause they saw he was a proper child ' {arretoy ri 
ToidLoii ; RV ' goodly '—see F'air). 

J. Hastings. 
PROPHECYAND PROPHETS.— Under this head- 
ing four subjects fall to be treated : the history of 
prophecy ; the psychology of prophecy ; the pro- 
phetic teaching ; and the verification in history of 
the prophetic ideas of the future. 


L The Origin of Pkopubot, 
U. The NiME Prophet. 
UL Historical Steps. 

1. The Agi' of Samuel. 

2. The Early Monarchy. 

8. The Aire of the Literary Propheti. 
4. The Decline and Expiry of Prophecy. 


i. The Ii>e.\ op the Peophr. 
ii. Inspiration. 
lii. Tub False Peofhktb. 

* See Deissmann on i3i«» in Bibeittudien, p. 120 1. (En<. tr. p 
123 f.). 



0. The Tea of the Prophets. 
i. Obneral Teaciiinq. 
U. Pkbdictive Pkuphkcy. 

1. f*redicti->ii in OcueraL 

2. Messianic I'rophecv. 


U. I'Kiii'UECT Moral and Costinoknt. 
Ul Pkoi'Uicv National and Ukultivs uks OT Reuoion. 

A. Tr/B JTrsTonr OFPROPllKcr.—Uehrew pro- 
phecy, tlioii;^!! the deepest movement of the human 
cpiril and in many waj-s the most mysterious, has, 
like other movenienta of the spirit, a history. 
There is the period of its obscure beginning's ; the 
period of its hi^'hest purity and lottiest achieve- 
ments ; and tlie period of its decline and exjiiry, 
when its work being aceomplislied other agencies 
in the education of mankind took its place. Its 
e.xpiry can be spoken of only in the sense that it 
ceased to be a creative power ; its results remain 
an imperishable heritage of the race, and the 
agencies in Israel that succeeded it, such as scribes 
and proverbial i.sts or wise men, were only the con- 
duits and channels that distributed the waters of 
its grciil stream over the individuals of the nation. 

i. Ul:li;l.\ OF Pkophkcy. — Something to which 
the general name of prophecy might be given seems 
to have existed among all peoples. It originated 
from beliefs or feelings common to men everywhere, 
Buch as (1) that there was a supernatural, a God 
or gods, on whose will and power the wellbeing and 
the destiny of men depended ; (2) that these sujier- 
iiatural powers had communion with men and gave 
thein intimations of their will and their purposes ; 
and (3) that these intimations were not given to 
men indiscriminately, but to certain favoured men, 
wlio communicated them to others. Having these 
beliefs, onlinary men or States desirous of living 
or acting in accordance with the mind of the deity, 
and particularly when in perplexity in regard to 
what laj' in tlie future, liail recourse to those 
through whom the deity spoke, and consulted 

The supernatural powers, it was supposed, gave 
intimation of their will and disposition towards 
men in two ways: (1) in an external way, by 
objective signs or omens in the region of nature, 
as by the (light or cry of birds. These creatures 
coming from heaven were the bearers of a message 
from heaven. Other creatures also were the means 
of signiliiant indications from the deity, for ex- 
amiile, in the way they met a man, or the side, the 
right or the left, from which tliey crossed before 
him.* In all countries the sacrilicial victim offered 
to the gods was held to exhibit signs from them, 
particularly in the convulsive movements of the 
liver and entrails of the freshly slain creature 
(Ezk 21). Less commonly omens were observed 
outside the animal world, e.g. in the rustling of 
the leaves of trees (Dodona; cf. Gn 12", Jg 9^, 
2 S a-*). In the East the movements and conjunc- 
tions of the stars were regarded as prophetic, 
though in this case the influence on man's destinj' 
may have been supposed to be exerted by the stars 
thiiiisulves, which, however, were often identilied 
with deities. {-) Hesides this external or objective 
revelation, there was an inward revelation given in 
the mind of man. In this case the deity possessed 
the man, inspired him, and spoke through him. 
It is possible, indeed, that the animal omens may 
have sometimes been regarded as forms assumed 
by the deity or as possessed by him. And from 
the curious feelings of antiquity regarding the 
rnpjiiirt existing between aninuils and men, the 
animals may sometimes have been supposed to 
Come to men not as mes.sengers of the deity, but on 
their own impulse, knowing themselves what they 
told to nun (W. K. Smith, ii.s" 443). But this, if 
* Ablivardt, Chat^ a Atymar, p. 460. 

true, belongs to a difTerent circle of iileas. Ex- 
amples of this second kind of revelation are common 
in the heathen world, as the Pythia in Greece, the 
hAhin in Arabia, the sibyl, and the like. Even in 
Greece this inward inspiration was considered 
something higher than divination by omens, and 
in ancient times, at least, tlie Oracle subserved 
high ethical and national ends. The divine omens 
were not intelligible to ordinarj' men, hence they 
required persons either of special endowment, or 
of skill acquired from tradition or by practice, to 
interpret them. Such persons, augurs, soothsayers, 
diviners, or prognosticators {Is 47), might be called 
prophets of the deity to men. Tlie I'ylliia, being 
wholly overpowered by the deity, ulteied her 
oracles with no consciousness of their meaning. 
The oracles were often enigmatic, requiring an 
interpreter. The interpreter was called prupliet 
[irpo<prjT-qi, in which t\\epro is not temporal). 

Tlie nifthods of divination practised in Israel will have more 
altinity wilh Ihoae usual amonf^ the Slieniitic pL'Oj'li s than with 
those of the general heathen world.* The feeling's prevalent 
in the ICast appear from the fact that a message tioin the deity 
nii;,'ht be brought to one by a person of another nation 
(Jt' '^~^, 2K 31-"): from the freciuent mention of divinen*, as 
among the Philistines (1 S 62, Is 2''), and of localities to vhic-h 
they had given names (Jg 7* 9^") ; from the weight laid on 
omens (Jg (i-^ ?■', 2 S .V-^), and particularly on dreams (J)r 
"ilir., 1 s 2S'^) ; and from the use of the oracle by the sat red 
.)ot(Jg8« 17s 185, lizk ai'-ii). An exhaustive list of the practices 
appears to be given in l>t ISlO- n. The passage 8t.ates that the 
practices were in use among the abori^'inal tribes which Israel 
disi)ossessed ; but as these tribes had been absorbed into Israel 
and fonned one people with it, the practices no doubt continued 
to maintain themselvea in Israel. The dilference might be that 
they were now performed in the name of J", and not in that of 
the native deities. The terms describing the practices are used 
by Heb. writers rather indiscriminately, but perliaps three 
distinct forms can be discovered ; (1) the oracle gained by certain 
methods from a god or idol (DCp), (2) interi>retation of omeni 
(tyn:), and fS) utteranoes of one possessed or ins])ired by the 
deity. (1) The oracle was common, perhaps, to most of the 
Sliemitic peoples ; at least it appears in Arabia and Babylon, aa 
well as in Israel. Mesha of .Moal), too, states that Chemosh gavo 
him commandments, but the metliod of receiving them is not 
in(hcated (cf. Ezk 21'-^). Lots (which were usually headless 
arrows or rods) were shaken and drawn in the presence of the 
idol, e.g. Hobal at Mecca, and the teraphim (one image) by 
Nebuchadnezzar (Kzk 2121). xhe (juestion put by the impiirer 
usually tfiok the form of an alternative, ' yes " or ' no,' ' this ' or 
' that,' though several possibilities might be proposed. In the 
story of Neljuchadnezzar the alternative was ' Itabbath-ammon ' 
or 'Jerusalem,' and the decision came out 'Jerusalem.* In 
method the sacred lot in Israel, Urim and Tunmiim, did not 
dilfer. This also gave a reply to an alternative proposed. It is 
possible that LX.V of 1 S U'*!-'*^ suggests the original reading: 
' And tSaul said, If the guilt be in me or in Jonathan my son, give 
Urim, O Lord God of Isi-ael ; but if thou say it is in my people 
Israel, give Tummim.' The first time Saul 'iil Jonathan were 
taken and Israel left ; the second time Jonat.ian was Uiken and 
Saul left. The fonn of the sacred lot is unknown, and in later 
times its real nature seems to have been forgotten. Nebuchad- 
nezzar drew the lots before the teraphim, certainly an image. 
In Israel the cphod was used, and hence the ephod is supposed 
by many to have been an image of J". Ephod and ter.iphini are 
named together (Jg 17^, llos 3-^), but it remains uncertain 
whether they were things different though used together, or 
things of the same class, the two naiTU'S neing cunmlative, or 
the one used as interpretative of the other. In the time of Saul 
and t)avid the epho<l was in common use ; later it fell into 
desuetude. Ilosea, however, mentions it as one of the ap^iliancea 
of religion in his day, and certainly not W'ith ap^>rnbatnin (Jl-*). 
If the root ka^am originally referred to this particular kind of 
divination, its use ceased t^> be exact. Saul uses the word of 
riivination by the 'df* (I s iS'*). and the canonical prophets call 
the false prophets k6^i^inim, diviners, and their oracles kciiem, 
liivination fpl. tyt'^dnittn), even when these prophets spoke (as 
they thought) by inspiration of J" or by dreams. (2) 'The root 
nahash (used In I'iel t'-j) appears to be used properly of divina- 
tion from omens. Joseph divined with a cu|>, the significant 
Indications being afforded by the play of light in the fluid, or by 
the bells and movements of the fluid itself, or, as some think, 
by the behaviour of oil poured into the cu|i of water (Gn 44'' i*). 
The word as well as ita noun is used of divination liy omens, but 
the different kinds of omen are not discriminated (Lv I»"^, Nu 
2;l''Ci 211) ; in an enfeebled sense the word meant to infer from 
signs or hidications generally (Gn SO'n, 1 K •HP'). (3) (tracks by 
inspiration or possession by deity were common to the heathen 

• An excellent account of general heathen mantlcism Is given 

In K. Kohler, Dpr I'ruphetiitiiuu drr tlvlintrr, u. tlir MariUk iter 

Gritchcn, IS'JIJ. The work of P. Scholz, (Jiitziiidini)il «. '/.aiUjer- 

WfHMi Oft ilfn aiUn Uet/ruem u. den Utuichbartint yoikent, 

I 1877, is less critical. 



and to Israel. And here manticism and prophecy come in con- 
tact. The two agree in fomi, and have to be distinj^ished by 
other toliens, e.ij. by the pod in whose name the oracle was 
given, and perhaps by the fact that in the mantic ecstasy the 
consciousness was overpowered and lost, while in prophecy 
there was only exaltation of inind and loss of the consciousness 
of external thiiif^s. 

The other thing's mentioned in Dt W"- are of the nature of 
magic or sorcery, and were always proscribed in the religion of 
J" (Ex 22'8, 1 S 28' '■•), though they continued in Israel till very 
late times. Saul names as legitimate sources of knowledge of 
the will of the deity, dreams, Uritn, and prophets (1 S 2S<'). Un- 
like divination, wliich seeks to ascertain the mind of the deity, 
magic was a means of binding superhuman powers (chietly 
demonic or chthonian), either to restrain them from injurmg 
oneself, or to constrain them to injure others, and put them 
under a spell, or to reveal what to mortal man was unknown. 
Tlie magical means might be— (1) protective, such as amulets 
(Gn S.i-i Is 33. 19) ; or (2) both protective and constraining, such 
as fonnulas of incantation (Ps 6S^i-, Dt 18", Is 47»- 12) ; an<l (3) 
necromancy. The last had several forms : (a) consulting theVii/, 
lb) consulting the yid'vni, and (c) consulting the dead. The 
forms (d) anillM are embraced in (c), though whether they ex- 
haust (c) is somewhat uncertain (Is 819 29-1, Lv 2027). Cf. W. R. 
Smith, Jmr. of PkUolugy, vol. xiii. 2"3fE., xiv. 113ff.; and 
Driver on Dt IsioT-. 

ii. The Name Pkophet.— In 1 S 9" it is said, 
' He that is now called " the prophet" (n'3: nabi') 
was beforetime called " the seer " (nx-i ru'eK).' The 
passage is an annotation, much later in date than 
the context, and cannot have been written before 
the name 'prophet' had been long current and 
attached to a succession of men. The radical 
meaning of the word nabi' is uncertain. Two 
terms are used for ' seer,' rffeh and huzeh (nin), 
though without diti'erence of sense. The annota- 
tor's remark might be supposed an inference from 
the fact that in the ancient record before him 
Samuel is called ' the seer.' Still that fact is of 
importance ; and the possibility that there was a 
time when the word ' seer ' was in common use may 
seem supported by the other fact that the word 
' vision ' (j'ln, p-in, etc. ) connected with ' seer ' is used 
all down the literature for ' prophecy,' the term^ 
'prophecy' (nebu'ah) connected witli 'prophet' 
being a fate word (Neh 6^^ 2 Ch 9-^ 15*). Much 
weight maj' not be due to this consideration, and 
on tiie other side may be urged the extraordinary 
rarity of the word ' seer,' though this again may 
be explained by supposing that all references to 
early times in which 'seer' might have been ex- 
pected to occur belong to writings which are pos- 
terior to the time when the word 'prophet' liad 
become the usage.* The author of the annotation 
1 S il'' is familiar with 'prophets' who were great 
isolati'd personages, like Elijah and probably the 
canonical prophets; and lie considers the 'seer' 
Samuel to have been quite like one of these. This 
is certainly true of Samuel, though how far true 
of other seers of his day, if such existed, may be 
doubtful. The seer was an isolated personage like 
the great pro|ihets. Hut, further, the character- 
istic of the true 'projihet' was that he pursued religious ends. Samuel did this with more 
splendid initiative than the greatest of his suc- 
cessors. He created the nation by giving it a 
king ; they only sought to preserve it. But the 
seers of h'is day, if there was such a class, may 
have ministered rather to personal and private 
interests, as Samuel himself seems to have done 
on some occasions (1 S 9). In 1 S 3' it is said 
that ' vision ' when Samuel was young ' was not 
widely diffused'; but 'vision' is here used of true 
prophecy such as the author was familiar with in 
his own time. History leaves us in complete 
ignorance in regard to the seers. In fact, the only 
' seer ' we know of is Samuel, and his history is told 
as in a very fragmentarv way. The historian gives 
a beautiful picture of his birth and childhood, 
narrating how he was dedicated by his mother to 
the Lord, and how J" sjioke to him in Shiloh as He 

• For example On ■Jii' (Abraham), Ex 11)»> (Miriam), Nu 112«»- 
(Eldad «nd Meaad), Dt lsi», Jg 4« 68, 1 S 3a>, c(. V. 

did to the canonical prophets afterwards (1 S 1-.3) ; 
but the narrative is smldenly broken otl', and when 
we hear of Samuel again he is already an old man, 
dwelling in Kamah, and known as ' the seer.- We 
learn from Jer 7'- that the house at Shiloh was at 
some time completely overthro\\'n — no doubt at the 
hands of the Philistines ; and Samuel driven from 
there took up his abode at Kamah. Though called 
a priest, the role of prophet was that accepted by 
him, as it is tliat usually as.4gned to him (1S9'^ 
Jer 15', Ps 99^ Ac 3'-^) ; and it was in the exercise 
of his r6le as prophet— statesman in the kingdom 
of God— that he interfered in so decisive a mannei 
in the national politics. It is true that the religion 
of J" did not as a rule create new agencies, but 
served itself of those already existing, into which 
it infused its own spirit, which gradually threw oH 
all heathen elements originally belonging to them. 
There may have been a class of 'seers' in the 
time of the Judges whose methods may not have 
been greatly unlike those in use among othei 
Shemitic peoples. But we know nothing of them. 
Samuel is the only ' seer ' known to history. 

The meaning of the root and the form N'3: is uncertain. 
(1) The form is not likely a pans, ptcp., but more probably, like 
Tip harvester and many words of similar form, has active 
sense. The word itself )in6i' occurs in Arab., but may be a loan- 
word from Heb., as it is in other dialects (Noldeke, Oesch. d. 
Korans, p. 1). (2) The sense of the word is obscure. The root 
has probably no connexion with y3: to bubble up, as if JidW 
were one who bubbles up under inspiration (Ges., Kuenen, 
Prophets, 42, cf. Ps 4.'>i). The root naba'a in Arab, means to 
come forward or into prominence, and causative (conj 

ii) to 
bring'forward, speciallv to do so by speech, to announce ; and 
in Etli. nababa means 'to speak (DiUm. AT Theut. p. 475). The 
word ndbV therefore would mean he who amuuiKes, or bruigs 
a message. The term, however, has not in usage the general 
sense of announcer or speaker, but always means one who speaks 
from God, i.e. a prophet, and the Hithp. frequently means to 
speak in an excited manner, to rave (jx^iytfoti). This connota- 
tion might suggest the question whether the root naba' did not 
ori<'inallv express some mental emotion, the reflexive forms 
(Niph. Hithp.) meaning to exhibit or display this emotion, as is 
the case with so many reflexives, e.g. nitty to groan, ?3xnn 
to exhibit grief, •]:mn to show anger. It is usually supposed, 
however, that the verbal forms are denominatives from nul/i: 
In this case the original root wouUi not be found in Heb., 
and the word ndbV would either be an old noun surviving after 
the verbal root was lost, or else a new word learned from the 
Canaanites. The word nabi' is said (1 S »9) to have become » 
substitute for rii'cA ' seer,' and unfortunately the literature la 
all later than the time when ndbV with its derivatives had 
become the usage. The 70 elders of Nu U (according K> 
Wellhausen, Comp.'^ 102 f., J working on older materials) 
'prophesy' quite after the manner of the 'prophets' ot the 
days of Samuel H S 10) or of Ahab (1 K 22), i.e. their ' prophesy- 
ing' is a joint exercise. It is possible that 'prophets of thu 
kind may have appeared in the earliest times, though we do 
not hear of them. Others (e.g. Kuenen, Proph. eli. 16) are 
inclined to think that the name ndbl is Canaanite, and borrowed 
by the Hebrews, who applied it to the bands of enthusiasts ol 
Saniucrs day because thev seemed to resemble the Can;iamte 
'prophets.' But the existence of Canajmite 'prophets. i.«. 
bands of Dervish-like enthusiasts, is purely conjectural. Viedt 
not hear ot such 'prophets' till 20il years later, and these are 
not Canaanite, but the priest-prophets ot the Tynan Baal inain- 
Uined at the cost ot Jezebel (1 K 1819). Wellhausen {Utit. 
p 449) remarks: ' Among the Canaanites such Nebum— for so 
they are stvled— had long been familiar.' It would not he easy 
to furnish the evidence. Again, the prophetic movement in tho 
days of Samuel was a religious national one, and it is not just 
probable that the Hebrews would borrow terms from the 
Sanaanites to describe it, particularly as the Canaanites were 
more than probablv in league with the Philistines (1 S Jl'"). 
The Can and Heb. languages must have been virtually 
identical ; at the same time the root-word appear* to exist in 
Assvr e.q. in Nebo the interpreter of the gods, and nabu to 
announce (Delitzsch, Assi/r. U»I!). and the term may have 
entered Canaan from Daliylon. The date when the change 
from ' seer ' to ' prophet ' took place cannot be ascertained , and 
the change itself is difficult to explain. Possibly as persons of 
individuality and power arose among the ' prophets they took 
a more independent position like that of 'seer, though th» 
name ' prophet ' contimied attached to them. Some personages 
like Gad bore both names (2 S 2411). , _ . . ,o 

The tcnn ili'eA is used chieflv of Samuel, 7 times out of 8 
(twice of Ilanani, 2 Ch 1071»). The word h6:eh is more common, 
2 a "411 K 17", Am 712, and often in the Chronicler, who 
alTerts archaic phraseology, e.g. 1 Ch 219 (Gad) 2 Ch 929 121. 
(Iddo), 2Ch l»4(Jehu), 2Ch i^M (Asaph), 1 Ch 265 (Heman), 
2 Ch 3516 (Jeduthun). In the plur. both rd'im and «c)Jto> are 
used as parallel to 'prophets,' Is 2010 (a gloss), SOm, Mic S'> 



2 Ch 33^8. 19, The eeera were so named from having Nnsions, 
and pos-iibly the priest Auiaziah apjilied tlie name hi'isr/i to 
Amos (7'-) on account of the visions wiiich he narrated (7^"). 
On h/jzeh (Arab. Aiiii) cf. HolTmonn, ZA II'. 1SS3, pp. 9U-U6 ; and 
on kcihin ( = A<izl) Wellhauscn, Reite^, p. lliOlf. 

iii. Historical Steps. — 1. 'Time of Samuel. — 
In tlie Book of Judges, beyond the reference to 
Di'borali (Jg 4), nnd a 'propliet' in tlie days of 
Midianite oppres.sion (6', of. 1 S2-''), nothing is said 
about proiibets. Deborali was a ' prophetess,' and 
'judged,' that is, ruled or governed, Israel. Both 
termt-. ' jirophetess' and 'judge,' imply that Deborah 
played a political r6]e. Slie was a motlierin Israel, 
and took the leadership in a national crisis. In 
the times of Samuel men called 'prophets' appear 
to have existed in great numbers. 

(«) Those called 'prophets' in this age formed 
communities ; they were cenobites, though not 
celibates (2 K 4'). They are first mentioned in 
connexion with Saul at Gibeah of God, Saul's 
home (1 S 10'). When dismissing him Samuel pre- 
dicted that lie would meet a band of prophets 
coming down from the high ])lace with music, 
and engaged in ' prophesying' (1 S 10°- '"). Anotlier 
( ompany had its home at Kamah, where Samuel 
himself dwelt (1 S 19"). It has usually been sup- 
]>o.sed that the term nuif/th means ' dwellings,' and 
describes such a prophetic settlement (2 K t5''', see 
Naiotii). In the times of Elijah and Elisha other 
localities are mentioned as residences, e.o. Bethel 
(2 K 2^), Jericho (2 K 2^), and tiilgal (2 K 4^, cf. 
2 K 6'). The re.sidenters are called ' prophets' and 
'sons of the prophets,' i.e. members of the pro- 
phetic societies (a single member is hcn-ndbi'. Am 
7"). Between Samuel and Elijah (1 K 202') „g ,„,,„, 
tion is made of the ' sons of the prophets,' though 
it is probable that the succession was still main- 
tained. Amos, a hundred years after Elijah, 
aiipears to be acquainted with prophetic societies 
;i''), and at all times prophets continued to be 
numerous (I K 22* IS''). As at the places named 
as residences there was a ' high place ' or sanctuary, 
it was probably around these sanctuaries where 
J" was worshipped that the prophets settled. In 
early times tlie distinction between priest nnd 
projihet does not seem to have been sharp. Tlie 
Arab. Icithin was both seer and priest. Samuel was 
both priest and prophet. Jeremiah and Ezekiel 
lioth came out of priestly families. The con- 
nexion, indeed, of priests and projihets was always 
close (Is 8'). Those proiiliets whom Jer. denounces 
as false act in concert with the temple priesthood. 
I'ashliur, who jmt Jer. in the stocks, was prophet 
as well as priest (Jer 20'"") ; and it was the ' priests 
and prophets' who arraigned Jer. before the 
princes for blasphemy against the temple (Jer '2()). 

(i) The inulliiilication of 'prophets' at this 
epoch indicates a rising spirit of devotion to J ", 
and fervour in His service. Some have supposed 
that this new fervour and religious elevation were 
due to the influence of Samuel, and that tiie 
origin of the juoiihetic societies must be traced 
to him. But all that we have history for is that 
Samuel was in close relation with the prophetic 
communities. We see him on some occasions at 
their head (1 S I9=") ; but that he did not usually 
reside among the ' prophets' appears from the state- 
ment that when David lied to hira at IJaniah the 
two together then went and dwelt at Naioth (1!)'*). 
It is evident that the prophets looked up to him 
and learned from him ; but it is also evident that 
lie felt that the impulses which moved them were 
common also to himself, and he wius not a.shanied 
to direct tliciii, and sh.'ire in their prophesyings 
(cf. Elisha, 2 K 4**). It is probable, therefore, that 
ihe rise of the ' prophets was due to something 
whi^h swept both Samuel and the people into the 
•aiiie stream of national-relijjious enthusiasm. 
(') This can hardly have been anything else 

than the crisis that had arisen in the nation's 
fortunes. The people had been subdued by the 
Philistines, and were threatened with national 
extinction. And in Israel of this age national and 
religious were virtuallj- the same thing. The idea 
of later prophets, that national autonomy might 
be lost, while the religion of J" remained, had 
not yet been reached. It was J" that created 
Israel, and made it a nation ; faith in Him was 
the bond of its national existence, and the hour 
of the nation's peril awoke a new religious-national 
fervour. The nation's fortunes and history was 
from the beginning the great lesson-book in which 
men read the nature of J" their God, and His 
disposition towards them (2 S 21"f- 24'"-). The 
national disasters were evidence of J"'s anger, and 
they awoke the national conscience. The 'pro- 
phets ' were not indi\idual enthusiasts ; they were 
inspired by common sentiments, and animated 
each other, and, as a society, reacted on the sur- 
rounding population. Their ' prophesying ' was a 
kind of public worship at the Iiigli place or sanc- 
tuary, to which they went up with pipe and song, 
as continued to be done in after -days (Is 30-''). 
And the songs were not songs without words. 
They had religious contents, as much as of the 
singers who afterwards '])roj)hesicd with harps' in 
the temple ( 1 Ch 25=- ', cf. 2 S 23'). However rude, 
thev would be celebrations of * the righteous acts 
of J", tlie righteous acts of his rule in Israel ' (Jg 
5"). They would be such songs as were after- 
wards collected in 'the Book of the AVars of J"' 
and in ' the Book of the Upright' (I'k. of Jashar). 
Some of the poetical fragments still to be found in 
the historical books may well belong to this age. 
Whether writing was practised by the 'prophets' 
may be uncertain (though cf. 1 Ch 29-'') ; but if they 
did not write, they prepared by their ' prophesy- 
ing ' a language for the literary jiropliets who 
came after them. In Amos, the oldest literary 
prophet, we find a religious nomenclature already 
complete ; we find also in him, almost more than 
in his successors, the prophetic mannerism and 
technique, such as the phrases 'oracle of J"' ('• ctti), 
'thus saith J",' and much else. It is not too much 
to that it was in these 'schools of the 
projjhets' all down the history that this uonieii- 
clature anil techni(nie were formed. 

[d) The new proplietism was a national-religious 
movement, though the emiiliasis lay on the reli- 
gious aspect of it. Like their great successors, the 
projihets hoped that the national restitution would 
be the .shape in which the religious regeneration 
would verify it.self. Nevertheless, the national 
claimed expression. The monarcliy was the crea- 
tion of prophecy, not merely in the sense that the 
))rophet Samuel, by inspiration of J", gave the 
jieople a king. The national direction of pro- 
phecy embodied itself in the kingship. The liist 
king of Israel was a prophet as well as the second. 
When Saul turned to go from Samuel, God gave 
him another heart, and when he met the iirophets 
the spirit of God came on him nnd he prophesied. 
His excitation was not mere contagious sympathy. 
There was iniml uiuler it; it was the thouglit 
awakened by Samuel of his high destiny and of the 
task before him taking lire from contact with the 
national - religious enthusiasm of the prophets. 
The exclamation of the populace, Is Saul also 
among the projihets? has been taken as an ex- 
pression of wonder that a solid yeoman like Saul 
should join himself to a conijiany of ranting en- 
thusiasts. This view is wholly imju-oliable. It 
was not in this way that religious exaltation was 
looked on in the It was just the visible 
excitation that suggested to the onlooker that 
the enthusiast was possessed by the deity. Even 
the insane, just because he had no mastery over 



his mind, whicli seemed moved by another, was 
lield inspired. A multitude of passages sliow the 
popular reverence for the prophets, c.ij. 2 K 4'"- *"'• 
(cf. 6' 9'), particularly 2 K 4''-'''- which describes 
how a person ' brought the man of God bread of 
the first fruits,' as people did to the sanctuary of 
J" (cf. 1 K 12^''-)- Iseither can Amos' disclaimer of 
being a prophet or one of the sons of the prophets 
mean that ' he felt it an insult to be treated as 
one of them." Amos (V) merely states a his- 
torical fact, viz. that he had not been an isolated 
prophet such as Elijah and others were, nor a 
member of one of the 'prophetic schools,' but had 
been suddenly called from behind the flock to 
' prophesy ' to God's people Israel. The respect 
with which he mentions prophets elsewhere a-s 
God's greatest gift to the people (2" 3'), is sufficient 
evidence of his feeling, t 

2. Early Monarchy. — During the time of; the 
Judges and the early monarchy the means of 
ascertaining the \n\\ of J" was chiefly the sacred 
lot and ephod. This was employed by Gideon (Jg 
8") and Micah (Jg 17. 18), by Saul, and by David 
and his priests in the early period of his history 
(1 S 23"-''). At a later time it is little referred to, 
the king's advisers being the prophets. Side by 
side with this there existed seers through whom J" 
spake. The Arab. Mhin or seer was also sup- 
posed to be possessed by a spirit, which spake 
through him (Wellhausen, Beste^, 134). The seer 
was absorbed into the class of ' prophets,' and the 
name ' prophet ' remained common to the isolated 
individual and the member of the community. 
And from this time forward the will of J" was 
chiefly asked at the mouth of the prophet (1 K 
14'''-). The early waters of prophetism may have 
been somewhat turbid, but they gradually ran 
clear, and became that stream of ethical prophecy 
to which there is nothing like in the religious 
history of mankind. J" spake in the mind of man 
and to his mind ; the propliet stood in the council 
of God. The two ways of ascertaining the will of 
J" in the age of Samuel are reflected in the two 
narratives of the election of Saul. Both narra- 
tives ascribe the institution of the monarchy to the 
\^-ill of J ", but in the one (1 S 9'-10" II) his will is 
declared through prophetic inspii-ation, in the 
other (1 S 8. 10"«- 12) through the oracle of the 
lot. The latter tradition, though further removed 
from the actual events, is at least true to the his- 
torical conditions of the period. 

The true causes of the rupture between Samuel 
and Saul can scarcely be ascertained. The pro- 
phetic spirit in Saul never obtained the mastery 
within him, it was always in conflict with contrary 
currents in his nature. Latterly the spirit became 
troubled and obscured, and its place was taken by 
an evil spirit from God (cf. 1 K 22^'*). David was 
a man according to God's heart, that is, in all 
things subject to the wUl of J" (cf. 1 S IS**), and 
the prophets are found supporting his throne. 
Special designations are given to some of them 
suggestive of the oflices they performed, e.g. men- 
tion is made of ' the prophet Gad, David's seer ' (2 S 
24", 1 Ch 21», 2 Ch 29-«). These prophets indirectly 
influenced the government and acted on the allairs 
of the kingdom as a whole, although through the 
king (2 S 24" T'"- IZ'"-, 1 K I'^ff). So long as the 
prophets and kings were in accord this may have 
continued, but when kings arose who were mere 
national rulers and unprogressive or retrograde 

•Wellhausen, Hint. 293. Wellhansen'B remark that 'the 
point of the story narrated of Saul (1 S in22ii-) can he nothing 
out Saniuel'B anti David's enjo>Tjienl of the disf;race of the 
naked king ' (p. 208), is merely the cynical sally of a modern 

t This view of Am 71< is rightlv taken by J. 0. Mattbes, art. 
'The False Prophets,' Mod. liev., July 1884. See also J. 
Bol>ertson, Early lielig. of Israel, p. 00. 

in religion, — of course no king of that age was 
irreligious in the sense of neglecting tlie tradi- 
tional religion, — naturally the propliets, at least 
those among them m ho were ethically progressive, 
took another side. It might have been well for 
the peaceable development of the kingdom of J" 
if the prophets and rulers had always been in 
harmony, and it might seem a calamity when a 
dissidence arose between them ; but undoubtedly, 
though the disagreement was often fruitful of 
trouble and revolution, it contributed to the inde- 
pendence of the prophetic order. Prophecy re- 
sumed the ' national ' element in it, which it had 
divested itself of and delegated to the riionarcliy, 
and stood forth against all classes and fuiKrtions as 
the immediately insjiired guardian of the kingdom 
of J" in all its interests. Moses was the type of 
the true prophet (Hos 12", Dt 18"). 

3. The Canonical Prophets. — Prophets like 
Nathan, Elijah, and Elisha, following the ex- 
ample of Samuel, directly interfered in the govern- 
ment of the State. Nathan determined the suc- 
cession to the throne (1 K l'-"') ; Elijah denounced 
the dynasty of Omri, and Elisha set in motion the 
revolution that overthrew it (2 K 9). The latter 
prophet was the very embodiment of the national 
spirit in the Syrian wars, and took the field in 
the campaign against Moab (2 K S""'). Elijah 
and he were the national buhvai-k — ' the chariots 
of Israel and the horsemen thereof ' (2 K 2"^). But 
after Elisha the propliets withdraw from exter- 
nal national, and party, conflicts. They no more 
head revolutions. l^evertlieless, they remain 
statesmen as much as their great predecessors. 
They could not cease to be politicians as long 
as the kingdom of J" had the form of a State. 
They oppose, warn, and counsel kings and State 
parties according to the exigencies of the time. 
Hosea, indeed, thinks the monarchy impotent for 
good, if it has not been from the beginning the 
source of all evil (IS'"^-). But Isaiah, so long aa 
the State was independent, warned Ahaz against 
involving his kingdom in the struggles of the 
nations, in the collision of which his country would 
be crushed (Is7); and when the dream of independ- 
ence had passed away he resisted with equal 
strenuousness the meditated revolt of Hezekiah 
and the Egyptian party against the Assyrian 

Sower (Is 3U"''- Sl'"^-)- I'le same principles guided 
er. and Ezk. in the Chahhean age (Jer 21' 3S-, 
Ezk 17). But the only weapon which the prophets 
now use is the word of God which is in their mouth. 
Jer., though set over the nations to pluck up and 
break do«n, wields only the word of J", which is 
like a h.ammer breaking the rocks in pieces (Jer 
1». 10 2,3"'), and which has a self-fulfilling energy 
(Is 55'"^). J" hews the people by the prophets, 
and slajs them with the words of His mouth 
(Hos 6"). But in this age new thoughts, difficult 
to account for, filled the minds of the prophets. 
Formerly, J", as God and ruler of His people, 
rejected dynasties, and by the proi>hets overthrew 
them (Hos 13") ; now, it is the conviction of all the 
prophets, both of the north and south, that J" haa 
rejected the nation, that Israel as an independent 
State is doomed to perish. Side by side with 
this thought, or as a consequence of it, another 
thought appears. The complex notion 'national- 
religious' seems reflected on and analyzed, and the 
'religious' assumes such preponderating weight 
that the 'national' appears of little value. The 
ideal kingdom of J" is a religious community faith- 
ful to the Lord. Another thing, closely connected 
with the two just mentioned, is the lotty spiritual 
and ethical conception of J" God of Israel reached 
by the prophets of this age, and, what is but the 
obverse sitfe of it, their severe judgment on the 
moral condition of the people. This lofty con- 



cepjion of J" and this pure ideal of what His people 
must be, cannot be an unmediatcd and inexplicable 
leap upward of Imnian religious genius, neither 
can it be a sudden divine creation. It did not, 
like Jonah's gourd, grow up in a night. History, 
unhappily, does not enable us to follow its growth. 
But it is the perfect efflorescence of a tree whose 
roots stood in the soil of Israel from the beginning, 
whose rital et<'rjfies had always been ino\'ing 
towards flower, and >vhich burst forth at last in 
the g'jrgeous blaze of colour which we see. The 
■wealtn of ethical and religious teaching found in 
the prophets of this age has led to a reaction the former idea that prophecy was speeih- 
cally prediction, and the \-iew has become i)reva- 
lent that the true function of the prophet was 
to be a teucher of ethical and religious truths. 
This view is also one-sided. The prophets never 
cease to be ' seers ' ; their face is always turned to 
the future. They stand in the council of J" 
(Am 3', Jer 23--), and it is what He is about to do 
that they declare to men. Their moral and reli- 
g;ous teaching is, so to speak, secondary, and due 
to the occasion. Their conviction is that the 
destruction of the nation is inevitable, and they 
iwell on the nature of J" and on the moral de- 
clension of the people to impress their conviction 
on the nation — ' prepare to meet thy God, O Israel ' 
(Am 4'"). Or, as their conviction of the inevit- 
ableness of the nation's doom does not seem 
absolate, but is crossed, at least at times, by the 
possibility or even the hope that it might be 
averted (Am 5"- ", Is 1", Jer 36'-*), they impress 
on the people the mind and life which is acceptable 
to J" — that ^^llich is good, and what the Lord 
requires of them (Mic C) — that they may repent, 
and that His judgments may be arrested. Or, 
when the foreboding of near destruction again 
oppresses them, they look beyond the dark and 
tempestuous night that is gathering to the day 
that will dawn behind it (Is 8""), — for though J" 
will destroy the sinful kingdom He will not destroy 
the house of Jacob (Am 9'), — and they dilate on 
the righteousness and the peace and the joy of 
that new age (Is 9'-*, Hos 2^^"). The prophets now 
emjploy writing, and the short, drastic oracles of 
former times (1 S 15*-', IK 11" 21'») give place to 
discourses of considerable length. By writing 
they could influence many whom their voice could 
not reach, and the written word became a perma- 
nent possession of the godly kernel of the people, 
upholding therti in the midst of the darkness when 
God's face was hidden, and being wlien the 
calamities were overpast a witness that God had 
still been with them (Is S'"-, Ezk 2"). The instances 
of Deuteronomy and the roll of Jeremiah show that 
a writing produced a far more powerful impression 
than the spoken word of the prophet. 

A strange and interesting phenomenon in the 
history of prophecy is what is called 'False' 
Prophecy. The true prophets, whose word 
hibtciry and God's providence verilied, and to 
which the religious mind of mankind has set its 
seal, laid cmjihasis on the 'religious' element in 
the complex 'national-religious' idea. The unity 
J' and the nation had to their minds become dis- 
rupted, and J' now stood opposed to the nation. 
The ' false ' prophets continued to lay the chief 
emphasis on the 'national' side; hence they might 
be called nationalistic prophets rather than false, 
though, of course, their anticipations were often 
di8i)roved by events. The question whether these 
prophets were retrograde or only unprugressive, 
will be answered dilR-rently acconling to the view 
taken of the development of religion in Israel. 
There is no reason to suppose that they had per- 
sonally sunk below the level of their own time. 
They stand on the same level with the body of 

the peoiile. The charge of the canonical prophets 
is that tlie nation as a whole had declined from 
the purer moral and religious ideal of early times 
(Hos 2', Is 1-'). And this charge is certainly 
true. Kor, admitting that the people by entrance 
upon the Canaanite civilization liad attained to a 
broader and fuller human life, and admitting even 
that the conception of J", by taking up into it 
some of the thoughts connected with the native 
gods, became enlarged and enriched, mixture with 
the Canaaiiites produced a deterioration both in 
the life and religion of Israel. It is this deteriora- 
tion that seems to the true prophets so fateful in 
regard to the destinies of the nation. And it is 
on this (question of the national future that con- 
flicts arise between the true prophets and the 
false. It is in this region, too, that another new 
phenomenon in tlie history of prophecy appears in 
this age — the persecution of the prophets. Former 
prophets, like Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha, were 
embodiments of the ' national -religious ' spirit, 
and carried the people witli them. The new out- 
look of the prophets regarding the national des- 
tinies enraged the populace. The prophets seemed 
to them madmen; their predictions that J" would 
destroy His people were incredible ; they were 
traitors, and sought not the welfare of the people, 
but their hurt (Jer 38^). The prophets probably 
mi"ht have preached as they liked about the nature 
of J" and the kind of service pleasing to Him, if they 
had not gone further and drawn inferences as to 
the destinies of tlie nation. Jehoiakim showed his 
indifference to Jeremiah's preaching, or his con- 
tempt for it, by throwing his book piecemeal into 
the fire ; it was only when at the end of the roll 
he found the assertion that Nebuch. would come and 
destroy the land (Jer 36^ 25"- '"), that he ordered 
the prophet's arrest. On another occasion Jer. was 
seized and beaten on the suspicion that he was 
falling away to the Chalda>ans, and flung into a 
dungeon because his gloom3' anticipations dis- 
heartened the men of war in the city (38*). And 
it was because of his prophecy of national disaster 
(1 K 22) that Ahab ordered Aticaiah to be confined 
on bread and water till he came back (he did not 
come back !). It was not their religious opinions 
but their political threats that drew persecution 
on the propliets (."^ni T'"*). The persecution was 
the convulsive efl'ort of the ' national - religious ' 
spirit to maintain itself. No doubt many of the 
people were impatient of the pro|>hets' general 
teaching, or contemptuous of it : thej- burlesqued 
their manner (Is 28"- '"), and ironically invited the 
interposition of the Lord with which the prophets 
threatened them (Is 5"- '") ; they imiiosed silence 
on them (Am 2'-, Mic 2"), and told them to have 
done with the Lord of hosts in their hearing (Is 
30"'") ; but it was mostly when the proimcts 
entered the political region, or when to the general 
mind they seemed guilty of sacrilege (Am "'-• ", Jer 
714 ofp. 8)_ i\^g_i harsher measures were adopted. No 
doubt the persecution of the prophets by Ahab at 
the instigation of Jezebel was on account of their 
opposition to the introduction of the liaiil worship. 
But even this persecution seems to have been 
transient, for shortly before his death we observe 
Ahab on the best of terms with the pro])hets (1 K 
22). If the 400 mentioned here are ' false,' or 
merely nationalistic, prophets, probably many of 
them liad opposed the Baal cultus if for no liighei 
reason than that J" was the national God. The per- 
secution by Manasseh, of whom we know so litth', 
would be for similar reasons, because the prophets 
opposed the Assyrian cults which the King 1"- 
ardently patronized. 

4. T/ie Ex/iiri/ of Prophecy. — Many things 
contributed to the decline and final failure of 



(a) The projihets bore some resemblance to a 
progressive political party in a State. So long as 
abuses exist, and privilege leads to injustice and 
oppression of the weaker classes, such a party 
is slroni;. Its power lies in attack. But when 
abuses nave been removed, and tlie reforms de- 
manded have been conceded and placed upon the 
statute book, the function of the party of progress 
has ceased. Now, the evils against which the 
prophets contended had, e.xternally at least, been 
removed by the reform of Josiah. Deuteronomy 
received the sanction of the king and government, 
and became tlie law of tlie State. Tliis was a 
triunipli of prophetic teaching on morals and re- 
ligion ; but if it was thus a witness to the power 
of prophecy in the past, it was virtually a death- 
blow to it for the future. For by embodying the 
practical issues of the prophetic principles in law, 
having State authority, it superseded the living 
prophetic word. No doubt even after Deut. be- 
came State law Jer. continued to be a prophet, 
lie perceived that the reform was merely e.xternal, 
and he continued to demand something more in- 
ward — not reform but regeneration. 

(6) Again, the great prophets from Amos to Jere- 
miah had traversed the whole region of theology and 
morals. Little could be added to what they had 
taught concerning J" and His purposes, concerning 
man and his destiny. Those who came after them 
could do little more than combine their principles 
into new applications and uses. And in point of 
fact such prophets as Ezekiel and Deutero-Isaiah 
are almost more theologians than prophets.* 

(<•) Another thing which contributed to the ex- 
pirj' of prophecy was the fall of the State. With 
the destruction of Jerusalem, the nation, the 
subject of prophecy, ceased to exist. Its destruc- 
tion was the seal set to the truth of prophecy, to 
its teacliing on God and the people, and its task 
was done. If in a sense prophecy had destroyed 
the nation it had saved religion. For by teaching 
that it was J" who brought ruin on the State it 
showed that the downfall of the nation was not 
the defeat but the triumph of J". The gods of the 
nations, Chemosh, Asshur, and Merodacli, perished 
with the nations of whose spirit they were the em- 
bodiments, but Jehovah rose the higher over the 
ruins of Jerusalem. He was seen to be the God of 
Kighteousness, the moral Ruler of the world — 
Jehovah of Hosts was exalted in judgment, 
And the Holy God sanctified in righteousness 

(Is 5"). 
Wlien Israel perished as a nation, and was scattered 
over every land, the idea of Israel just by being 
detached from the nation became clearer ; the 
conception of Israel, of its place in the moral 
history of mankind, took the place of Israel, and 
the second Isaiah, operating with this conception, 
— the servant of the Lord, — is still a prophet. No 
doubt with all his brilliancy mucli of his book is 
theoloCTcal deduction from his lofty conception 
of J", out in one respect he is what aU the great 
prophets were, an ' interpreter ' of history, and by 
tar the profoundest. He stands at the end of 
Israel's history, and looking back he reads its 
meanin", which is that its sutlerings as servant 
of the Lord have atoned for its sins as a mere 
part of mankind. 

(rf) Altliough at the Restoration the gorgeous 
anticipations of the second Isaiah had been dis- 
appointed, the idea of what Israel was, its con- 
sciousness of itself and its meanin-' in the religious 
life of mankind still maintained tnemselves. The 
eschatological hope remained indestructible. This 
hope had sometimes a national element in it, the 

• Wellhausen remarks (^Heste^, 137) that with the revelation of 
the Koran the function of the kdhin or Beer caoie to an end, 
and he disappears. 

idea of a political supremacy of Israel over the 
other nations, but it was mainly the hope of 
religious supremacy as the people of God (Is 61*). 
Israel had become a purely religious idea, its 
mission was to be the light of the nations — salva- 
tion was of the Jews. And this great eminence 
and triumph God would confer upon it by a 
sudden interposition, when He would plead its 
cause and 'justify' it by showing it to be in the 
right in its time-long plea against the nations — a 
plea which in other words was the n^ligious history 
of mankind (Is otH"-)- And what remained for 
Israel was to prepare for God's interposition, and 
be worthy of it by doing His will. Thus, when 
Israel was merely a religious community with no 
national life, propliccy became altogetlier detached 
from history and took the form of reflective and 
theological combinations of former prophecies. Its 
theme was the eschatological hopa, and it occupied 
itself with searching what, and what manner of 
time this hope would be realized (Dn 9-, I P 1"). 
Prophecy becomes Apocalyjitic. Apocalj'ptic con- 
tinues to share all the great ideas of proi.hecy : it 
regards history as the expression of God's moral 
rule of the world ; it regards God as purposing 
and foreseeing all its great movements ; and it sup- 
poses Him to reveal His purposes to His servants 
from the beginning. Hence, instead of looking 
back over history. Apocalyptic plants itself in 
front of history, turning history into prophecy, 
and locating all its great movements in the mind 
of some ancient seer, Enoch, Moses, Baruch, 
Daniel, or Ezra. Apocalyptic is thus always 
pseuilepigrapliic ; but the date of an Apocalyjise 
can generally be guessed from the fact that up to 
his own time the author is pretty accurate, having 
history to rely on, whUe from his own time on to 
the end he can only forecast or calculate. 

In the times when prophecy had virtually ceased 
there are occasional references to it. The references 
are of two kinds. Generally they are ex]iressions 
of sorrow that the people has no more the guidance 
of the prophet in its perplexities and darkness, and 
of the hope that a prophet will again arise ; but 
once at least prophecy is spoken of with dislike. 
In the one case the true prophet is thought of, in 
the other the misleading false prophecy. See on 
the one hand Ps 74», 1 Mac 4'« 9-'' 14^' ; cf. La 2", 
Pr 29'8 : on the other hand Zee 13'-» ; cf. La 2''' 4'». 

The prophets of the OT may be grouped thus — 

t Prophets of the Assyrian ^ql 
Jonah (referred to 2 Iv 14^). 
Amos, c. 700-7.50. 
Hosea, c. 760-737. 
Isaiah, 740-700. 
Mical), c. 724 and later. 
Zephaniah, c. 627. 
Nahum, c. eiCMiOS. 

U. Propuets op the Cbaldj&as Pi&iOik 
Jeremiah, c. 626-586. 
Habaklsuk, c. 605-600. 
Ezekiel, c. 69S-573. 

Ui Prophf,t8 of the Persian Period. 
Is 13-14 211-10 34-35?. 
Deutero-Isaiah, c. 540. 
Haiigai and Zt-chariah, 1-8, c. 620. 
Malachi, c. 460-450. 

ProlMibly later, at all events after the Restoration, Joel, 
Jonah, Obadiah (in present form), Is 24-27, Zee 9-14. 

B. The PitOPllETIC Mind. — Many questions 
arise regarding the mind of the prophet which 
can hardly be answered, but allusion may be made 
to some of them. 

i. The Idea of the Prophet. — A number of 
things are said of the projihet which might .serve 
as partial delinitions. Such definitions are ditl'crent 
at dill'erent times, the prophet being regarded from 
various sides. In inquiring; into the prophetic mind, 
it is the prophet's own idea of himself that is of 
interest ; but his idea of himself did rot differ frow 



tlie people's idea of liim, though in his own case 
the idea was based on his coriseiousness, in the case 
of t lie people on their observation. Both believed 
that the prophet was one who spoke the word of 
J". When threatened with death Jer. said to the 
people, ' For of a truth J" has sent me unto you to 
speak all these words in j'our ears ' (Jer 26'°) ; and 
the people's idea of their prophets, if not of Jer., 
was the same : ' the word shall not perish from the 
prophet ' (Jer 18'8). 

Certain names applied to the prophet axe sug- 
gestive of ideas entertained of him. (1) One of the 
oldest and most common of these designations was 
man of God. The name is used of Samuel (1 S 9'), 
of Elijah and Elisha, and of others (1 K 12^ 13, 
Jer 3o*), and often of Moses. The name implies 
close relation to God ; the prophet is near to God 
(Am 3', Jer 23*»- =»). The Shunammite made a little 
chamber for Elisha, because he was ' a holy man 
of God ' (2 K 4). Holiness is nearness to God ; 
whether in this age it already connoted moral 
purity (Is 6') may be uncertain ; the ' man of God' 
at any rate sujifjested this, for the widow of 
Sarepta said to Elijah, ' What have I to do vdth 
thee, thou man of God? art thou come to call my 
sin to remembrance?' (1 K 17'*). The name 'man 
of God ' suggests both the ethical basis of prophecy 
and the religiousness of the prophet. All the pro- 
phets pass moral judgmentson their contemporarie.«i, 
e.g. Nathan on David (2S 12) and Elijah on Ahab, 
and the pages of the literary prophets contain little 
else than such judgments. And Jeremiah at last 
goes so far as to say that the mark of a true pro- 
phet is just that he pas-ses such a moral condenma- 
tion on his time ; this of itself authenticates him 
(Jer 28'- '). How deeply the moral entered into 
the prophet's own idea of prophecy is seen in Is 
6^-, cf. Mic 3*. But the notion of religiousness or 
godliness suggested by the name ' man of God ' is 
even more important. Tlie prophet's ' call ' was 
less appointment to an office as we call it, than to 
a religious life-task. His prophesying was lifted 
up into his own per.sonal religious life. The foun- 
tain of prophecy was communion with God. This 
is seen in Jer., in whom prophecy and piety melt 
into one another. (2) Another common designa- 
tion of the prophet is servant of God or of J". 
The name is given to prophets in general (2 K 9'), 
to Elijah (1 k IS**), Isaiah (2i)^), and others (1 K 
14", 2 K 14^*), iiarticularly to Moses. The service 
is usually public, in the iuterests of God's king- 
dom. The name 'servant of J"' is given also to 
Israel. Israel is the great servant of J" — his 
ministry is to mankind, that of the individual 
prophets is to the narrower world of Israel itself. 
And in like manner both Israel and tlie prophet 
are called vir.survr/rr of J" — the one to the nations 
(Is 42'»- '»), and tlie other to Israel (44'^''). The term 
•messenger' is used mostly in late writings (Hag 
1", Mai 3'), but the consciou-sness of being ' sent' 
is common to all the proi)liets — ' Go and tell this 
people' ( Is 0-', Jer 26'°). "The prophet feels he has 
a commission to the people as much as Moses felt 
he had a commission to Pharaoh. (3) Another 
name given to the projihet is interpreter. The 
name, though rare (18 43-''), is descriptive of the 
position of the prophet in regard to historj' and 
God's providence. (Jod speaks in events, and the 
prophet interprets Him to men. Prophecy arises 
•mt of history, keeps pace with it, and interprets 
it. (iod is the author of Israel's history, and His 
meaning in it. His disposition towards the people 
as expressed in it, rellccts itself in the projihet's 
mind. And as it rellects itself it awakens in him 
the sense of the i)e<>i)le'8 evil ; and being one with 
them he becomes the conscience, particularly the 
evil conscience, of the people. Events are never 
mere occurrences; God animates them; each great 
VOL. IV. — 8 

event of history is a theophany, a manifestation of 
God in His moral operation. The eyes of ordinary 
men do not perceive this meaning, and when 
suddenly confronted with some unexpected issue 
they exclaim, 'Verily thou art a God that hidest 
thyself, God of Israel, the Saviour' (Is 4.5"). 
Further, no event is isolated ; each has resulted 
from something preceding it, and will issue in con- 
sequences following it. History is a moral current, 
and at whatever point in it the prophet stands he 
feels whence it has come and whither it is llowing. 
Of course, the prophet is not a mere interpreter of 
history or institutions.* To sujjpose so would be 
to give him the second instead of the first place; 
the mind of man is greater than institutions or 
history, and it is in it above all that God will 
reveal Himself. And even the institutions and 
history are not mere miraculous Divine creations; 
men concurred in founding the institutions, and 
they have their part in making the history. Events 
furnish the occasion of the prophet's intuitions, but 
they do not set bounds to them. Indeed we often 
see the prophet's mind outrunning history, filling 
the events around him with a profounder meaning 
than they actually contain. His own mind is full 
of great issues, great ideals of the future ; and 
eager to see their realization he animates the events 
occurring in his day with a larger significance than 
they have, thinking they will issue in the linal 
perfection for which he yearns. If he proves at 
fault in regard to the ti7ne, he rightly divines the 
moral connexion of the events of his day with the 
perfection of the end. Other names, such as ' seer,' 
' watchman ' (Jer 6", Ezk 3"), need not be dwelt 

There are several passages, belonging to fliR'orent 
dates, which might be taken as definitions of ' pro- 
phet.' In Am 3'-' it is said, ' The Lord God doeth 
nothing without revealing his counsel to his ser- 
vants the prophets.' Jer. (23--) varies this by saying 
that the prophet stands ' in the council ' of J", and 
knows His piirjiose (Job 15*). The passage states 
two things.viz. that J"reveals His mind and purpose 
to the prophets, and that He does so particularly in 
reference to the future. When great events are 
about to happen, involving the destinies of the 
people, the sensibility of the prophet is quickened 
and feels their ajiproach, and he stands forth to 
announce them. '1 bus Amos and Hosea appear as 
heralds of the downfall of the kingdom of the 
North ; Micah and Isaiah, when the storm-cloud of 
Assyrian invasion «as rising on the northern 
horizon, and Jeremiah when the empire of the East 
was passing to the Chald.eans, and the downfall of 
Judali was nigh at hand. Among other passages 
referring to prophecy on its predictive side, Is 
4jj.2iir. j,.f 4518. ID) deserves mention. Here predic- 
tive prophecy is claimed for J" and Israel and 
denied to the idols and their peoples, and the power 
to predict as well as the fact of bavin" truly pre- 
dicted is proof that J" is God. J" is tlio first and 
the last ; He initiates the movements of history, 
anil He brings them to an end. From the beginning 
He foresees the end. But it is His relation to Israel 
that causes Him to announce it beforehand. For 
Israel is His servant, and His piir])ose can be ful- 
filled only through the co-operation of men, to 
whom it must be revealed. The conception of a 
living God in moral fellowship with men involves 
in it proidu'cy having reference to the future. Here 
again ])ro|ihc(y is lifted up into the sphere of 
personal religious life. 

The passage Dt 18''", though not excluding 

frediction, places prophecy on a broader basis. 
'ropheey is due to two things; (1) to that 
yearning of tlie human spirit to know the will of 

* This scL-nis tlie idt-a of v. llofniann, Weiuaffung u Erfiil- 




the deity, and to have communion with him, 
common to men everywhere. This yearnin" 
created many kinds of diviners, who by external 
means inferred what was the mind of deity. But 
it is not in this way, but in one higher and 
worthier, that the true God satisfies the yearning 
of His |ieo|)Ie's heart (Nu 23-"). However pro- 
fusely si;,'ns of Him and of His mind be scattered 
over nature, tliere is a more immediate intercourse 
between Him and men. He speaks to the mind 
of man directly ; there is a communion of spirit 
with spirit. J ' puts His words in the prophet's 
mouth, who speaks them in His name (Dt 18'*-''). 
(2) And the reason for employing a prophet as 
mediator between J" and the people is that the 
jicople shrank from hearing the voice of J" speak- 
ing to them directly. He spoke the ten words in 
tlie people's ears at Horeb, but Israel said, ' Let 
me not near again the voice of the Lord my God, 
that I die not' (18'°). An extraordinarily lofty 
place is assigned here to the prophet : his words 
are as much the words of J" as if^ J" spoke them 
immediately with His own voice (of. Nu 12-). 
But these words of Moses, ' A prophet shall the 
Lord your God raise up unto you like unto me,' 
contain other points illustrating the idea of 
'prophet.' The term 'raise up'(cf. Am 2") is 
used of the judges, and in many ways the 
prophets were the successors of the judges. The 
prophet is immediately raised up. The Divine 
art is reflected in his own consciousness in the 
crisis named his 'call.' His position is a personal 
one. He is not a member of a caste inlieriting an 
office. He may be taken from any class : from 
the priesthood, like Samuel, Jer., and Ezek., and 
probably others ; from the aristocracy of the 
capital, like Isaiah ; from the population of the 
country tOTiTiships, like Micah and Urijah of 
Kiriath-jearim (Jer 26) ; or from those that followed 
after the flock, like Amos. Women, too, might be 
prophetesses, as Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah 
(2 K 22). The singular ' a prophet ' may be used 
collectively of a line of prophets (Hos 12"), or 
more probably as there was usually only one great 
prophet at one time the reference may be to the 
individual prophet in each age. In the words ' like 
unto me ' the prophet is put on the same plane 
with Moses ; and so far as the scope of his func- 
tions extended this is the best definition. It may 
be said that we really do not know what Moses 
was like ; and to say tliat the prophet was ' like 
Moses,' is to explain the unknown by tlie more un- 
known. We know at least wlia t Moses was thought 
to be like in the age of the Deuteronomist and 
earlier — he was one faithful in all God's hoime (Nu 
12') ; and the prophet's oversight was equally broad. 
Prophecy was not an institution among other insti- 
tutions, like priesthood and monarchy ; it founded 
the monarchy, and it claimed in the name of J" 
to correct and instruct priests as well as kings. 
Tholuck * has defined the prophet as 'the bearer 
of the idea of the theocracy. The definition is 
true in the sense that the prophets do not claim 
to be originators, they have inherited the prin- 
ciples which they teach; but it touches the jirophet 
only on his intellectual side. The propliet was 
more than a teacher, and the theocr.acy was life 
as well as truth. The jirophet was not only the 
bearer, he was the emho<linient of the idea of the 
theocracy. This idea, which is that of the com- 
munion of the living God with mankind, was 
realized in him and through him in Israel. 
Though he could be distinguislied from Israel he 
was, in truth, Israel at its highest. The prophets 
were not persons who stood as mere olijective 
Divine instruments to the people whom they 
addressed ; they were of the people ; the life of 
* JHe Propheten u. ihre Wrisgagungen, p. 12. 

the people flowing through the general mass only 
reached its flood-tide in them. Every feeling of 
the people, every movement of life in it, sent its 
impulse up to them ; every hope and fear waa 
reflected in their hearts. And it was with hearts 
so filled and minds so quickened and broad that 
they entered into the communion of God. 

One other passage may be referred to which 
expresses very clearly the main element in the 
idea of prophet. In Ex 7' J" speaks to Moses, 
' See, I liave made thee God to Pharaoh, and 
Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet' (H). In 
Ex 4'* (J) a similar statement occurs, 'He (Aaron) 
shall be thy spokesman to the people ; he shall be 
to thee for a mouth, and thou slialt be to him 
God.' Moses ' inspired ' Aaron, and Aaron spoke 
his words to Pharaoh and the people. So all the 
prophets, e.g. Is SO'' 31', regard themselves as the 
' mouth ' of J". 

ii. Inspiration. — When Samuel dismissed Saul 
he said to him, ' Thou shalt meet a band of 
prophets ; and the spirit of the Lord will come 
mightily upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with 
them, and shalt be turned into another man* 
(IS 10°-'). The term 'prophesy' describes the 
excited demeanour and utterance of the prophets, 
and the ' spirit ' is regarded as the cause of this. 
Of course, the prophets did not utter mere sounds, 
but words with meaning ; but it is the personal 
exaltation of the prophet himself, who has become 
another man, and not specially the contents of his 
utterance, that is ascribed to the ' spirit.' The man 
on whom the spirit comes, oftener performs deeds 
than speaks words. The ' spirit of tlie Lord ' came 
on Samson, and he rent the lion as he would have 
rent a kid (Jg 14*) ; it came on Saul, and he slew 
his oxen and sent the fragments throughout Israel, 
calling to war with Amnion (1 S 11°) ; similarly it 
came on Gideon (Jge**), Jephthah (11-'), and others, 
and they went out to war and judged Israel. The 
spirit of the Lord suddenly carries Elijah away, 
one knows not whither (1 K IS'-), and men fear 
that it may cast him upon some mountain or into 
some valley (2 K 2'°) ; and with ' the hand of the 
Lord ' upon him he kept pace with Ahab'a 
chariots (1 K 18^''). Probably the conception of 
God and that of the spirit of God always corre- 
sponded to one another. In early times God was 
conceived more as a natural than a spiritual force ; 
His operation, even when He might operate on the 
ethical side of man's nature, was physical. Hence 
' siiirit ' connotes suddenness and violence in the 
Divine operation. When one is seen performing 
what is be3ond man to do, or what is beyond him- 
self in his natural condition, both to himself and 
to the onlooker he appears not himself, he is 
another man ; he is seized and borne onward by a 
power external to him — the spirit of the Lord is 
upon him. One under the spirit is always carried 
away by an impulse, sudden, and often uncon- 
trolfable. Hence the terms descriptive of the 
spirit's operation suggest suddenness and violence ; 
it 'comes upon ' (Sy .Trt 1 S l!)-"-^), 'comes mightily 
upon' (n^s IS lu"- •»), 'falls upon' (Ezk 11'), 
'descends and rests on' (nu Nu II'^-^), 'puts on' 
a man as a garment (-'^V Jg 6^, 2 Ch 24-*), ' fills' 
him (Mic 3*), and the like. Similarly it is said 
that tlie ' hand of the Lord ' comes upon him (Ezk 
l^ 2 K 3'»), and overi.owers him (Is 8"). AH 
these expressions describe the plienomena visible 
to the onlooker, or experienced by the prophet. 
But it is the complex manifestation that they 
describe ; they do not analyze it, nor answer the 
question. Where amidst these phenomena is the 
point at which the spirit operates? 

It is remarkable that in the literary prophets 
little reference is made to the spirit, and the 
references made are rather allusive than forma' 




and direct. Hosea (9') calls the prophet ' the man 
of the spirit' ; Isaiah (30'- -, cf. Job 20*) uses ' spirit 
of J" as parallel to ' muuth of J"' ; and Miiali (3") 
declares liinisclf full of power ' by the spirit of 
J"' to declare unto Jacob his trans^'ression.* But 
other pro)iliets, including Amos and Jer., do not 
express the idea. The e.\planation of this fact is 
probably this : in this ajje the violent e.\citation 
usual in early prophecy liad almost disappeared ; 
it was the violent impulse to sp. ak or act that 
•spirit' particularly connoted, and hence refer- 
ences to spirit are rare. Isaiah ou one occasion 
(8") speaks of the ' hand * of J" being upon him, 
which may refer to some unusual elevation (though 
cf. Jer 15'"), but the 'power' which Micah was 
conscious of was probably moral, though whether 
intermittent or not may be uncertain. Some have 
supposed that in this age the spirit was regarded 
as a permanent possession of the prophet, and for 
that reason not specially alluded to.t In Xu 11^ 
the spirit that was upon Moses is spoken of, part 
of whicli rested on the elders, and they prophesied. 
Their prophesying was momentary and under great 
excitation; but whether the 'spirit' was considered 
a permanent possession of Moses or not is not clear 
(cf. v.^ with V.-*). And the same uncertainty re- 
mains with regard to the 'spirit' that was on 
Elijah (2 K 2-"'). In Is II-'- the spirit of J" is 
said to descend and rest upon the Messiah, giving 
him discernment, counsel, and might in rule, as 
well as the fear of the Lord ; and this spirit would 
seem a permanent possession, though revealing 
itself as occasions reijuired. But the failure of 
the canonical prophets to refer to the spirit is 
scarcely due to their thinking of it as a permanent 
power indwelling in them ; it is rather due to their 
not thinking of the spirit specially at all. The 
cessation of the ecstasy left the prophet his proper 
self ; he was conscious of being an independent 
individual person, and as such he entered into 
fellowship with God. He was no more driven or 
overpowered by an impulse from without, which 
superseded his proper self ; his communion with 
God was a communion of two moral persons. God, 
it is true, did not speak to him face to face and 
externally as He did to Moses, but He spoke no 
less really' to his mind. The nature of the com- 
munion 13 clear from the dialogues in Is G and 
Jer 1. In its full perfection it is seen in Jeremiah, 
who should be taken as the true type of the 

At a later time references to the sjiirit again 
recur, particularly in lizekiel. How far the trances 
of Ezekiel were real, being jjartly due to a natural 
constitutional temperament, and how far thej' 
are mere literary embodiment of an idea, may be 
disputed. In the latter the idea they express 
would be the one running through all his pro- 
pliei ies, the transcendent majesty and jjower of 
God, and the nothingness of the 'child of man,' 
who is a mere instrument in the hand of God. In 
this late age various idcius of the spirit i)revail. 
A prophet like Joel goes buck to the early forms 
of piojilicey, and reproduces the ancient idea of 
the spirit (2-"" [lleb. 3'"]). In other passages the 
spirit a]ii)ear8 a iiermaneut possession, being like 
tlie gift bestowed on one when consecrated to an 
ollice (Is 61') ; while in others still the spirit seems 
generalized into the Divine enlightenment and 
guidance given to Israel through its leaders and 
prophets all down its history (Is 5!)-' 03'", Hag 2'). 
But amidst some variety of coiicei>tion certain 
ideas of the spirit always remain : the .si)irit is 

•Some scholars repnrtl the phnue by the tpirit of J" 08 ftn 
•xplanntory glnwi O^el'-. Xowock, etc.). The sense of nn ia 
uncrrUIn ; it may mean mlh, Inj Ihe aid o/, On 41, Job ;(!', or 
It muy be accua. si^n : ' lull ol power, even the spirit of J",' KVm. 

t Oiewbrechl, Die BeruJeUj/abung dtr atUcit. J'rojtli. 

something external to man, something Divine, 
something bestowed by God on man. 

Taking into account what has been said above 
of the ' spirit,' it ai)pears that what has been 
called the prophetic state varied at dill'erent times. 
Two periods can be distinguished, though not 
separated from one another by any sharp line of 
demarcation : the early prophetic period, and the 
period of the literary prophets. (1) In the early 
period mental excitation was common, though the 
excitation might be of various degrees ; seff-eon- 
.sciousness was not lost, and memory of what was 
experienced remained ; the NT rule that ' the 
spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets ' 
was in most cases verified. The revelation in this 
period often took the form of dream and vision. 
The OT couples these two together (Xu 12", Jl 
2^ [Heb. 3']). Dream and vision are not identical, 
but they differ chiefly in degTee — the degree to 
which the senses are dormant, and the conscious 
ness of what is external is lost, and reflective 
control over the operations of the mind is sus- 
jiended. The pro^iliets regard their dreams and 
visions as something objective in the sense that 
they are caused by God (Am 7"^-). But in attempt- 
ing to analj'ze the prophetic uiiud we must 
remember that dreaming and seeing a vision are 
forms of thinking ; the contents of the dream and 
vision are not objective, as things seen with the 
bodily eye are objective, they are creations of the 
mind itself. Perhaps the best idea of the pro- 
phetic mind in this period or in this condition 
might be got by reflecting on the phenomena of 
the dream. Now, it is in this period that the 
jiliraseology current all down the prophetic age 
originated, and it is the phenomena of tliis period 
that it describes — sucn phra.seulogy as ' see,' 
' vision,' ' hear,' ' the word of the Lord,' and such 
like. In this early time prophets did 'see' and 
had 'visions'; lliey did 'hear' the 'word of the 
Lord,' just as one sees persons and things, and hears 
words audibly in a areani. The terms truly de- 
scribe the mental experiences of the prophet, and 
are not mere figures of s[ieecli. But in the time 
of the canonical prophets visions and dreams 
virtually ceased, though the pioi)lietie language 
still remained in use. It is quite possible that in 
some eases the literary propliets still had visions 
and ' heard ' words, but certainly they use the 
ancient phraseology in a multitude of instances 
when they bad no such experience. Jer. alludes 
with aversion to the 'dreams' of the false proidiets. 
It is possible that these dreams were in .some cases 
real, being due to the agitations produced by the 
political crises of the time. If so, it is another 
evidence that these prophets still occupied a 
position which the true prophecy had long aban- 
doned. (2) Perhaps the bust idea of the mental 
slate of the prophet in the purest stage of prophecy 
would be got by considering the condition of the 
religious mind in earnest devotion or rapt spiritual 
communion with God. Even the earliest prophets 
intercede with God (Am 7, cf. Kx 32") ; and Oehler 
has drawn attention to the fact that the com- 
munication of a revelation to them is often called 
'answering" them — the same expression as is used 
in regard to prayer (Mic 3', Uab 2"^-, J. r 23"). 
The [irophets as.severate very strongly that it is 
the word of God which tliev speak. But it is 
doubtful if any psychological conclusions can be 
drawn from their language. I'or it is to the 
contents of their prophecies that they refer; and 
though it might seem strange that they do not 
alluile to any mental operations of their own, the 
analogy of the devout worshipper suggests an ex- 
planation. A person in earnest prayer to God 
and communion with Him, though his mind will 
certainly be profoundly exercised, when light 



dawns on him, or certitude is reached, or conduct 
becomes plain, will also feel and say with certainty 
that it was God who gave him the result he 
reached. It might be rash to say that the experi- 
ence of such a devout mind is perfectly analogous 
to that of the prophetic mind, but the analogy is 
probably the nearest that can be found. 

It may be said, therefore : (1) that the prophet's 
mind in revelation was not passive, but in a state 
of activity. Even the ' call ' to prophesy was not 
addressed to a mind empty or unoccupied with the 
interests of the nation. The ' call ' came to the 
three great prophets through a vision (Is 6, Jer 1, 
Ezk 1 ), but it is recognized that the ' vision ' 
contains strictly nothing new ; it is a combination 
of ideas and thought-images already Ij'ing in the 
mind. Isaiah, for example, had often thought of 
the Holy One of Israel, the King, previous to his 
vision ; he had often considered tlie sinfulness of 
the people, which he himself shared ; and no doubt 
he had forecast the inevitable fate of the people 
when J" arose to shake terribly the earth. These 
thoughts probably occupied his mind at the 
moment of his caU, for it came to him as he 
worshipped J" in the temple, and beheld His 
glory (cf. also Jer 1*"'°). Neither can the com- 
pulsion of which the prophets speak be regarded as 
anything physical. Even when Amos says, ' The 
Lord God speaks, who can but prophesy?' the 
constraint is only moral. And similarly when Jer. 
says, ' Thou didst induce (or entice) me, and I was 
induced ' (20'), he refers to the conflict in his own 
mind described in 1^"'° ; and even when he speaks 
of the word of J" being as a fire in his bones, com- 
pelling him to speak, when, to avoid persecution, 
he had resolved to be sUent, there is nothing more 
than such moral constraint as was felt by the 
apostles in the early days of the Church, or by 
one now with earnest convictions. Again, the 
allegation, often made, that the prophets did not 
understand their own oracles, can hardly be s>ib- 
stantiated. The passage 1 P l""- says that the 
prophets ' searched what time or what manner of 
time the spirit of Christ which was in them did 
point unto ' ; but first, it speaks of the prophets as 
a body, and of the spirit common to them all. It 
does not say that any prophet searched his own 
prophecies. The apostle probably generalizes the 
mstance referred to in Dn 9-, where Daniel searches 
the prophecies of Jeremiah. Further, tlie point to 
which the search was directed was the time or 
manner of time, nothing else. And this point, if 
indicated at all, was indicated so obscurely that it 
had to be inferred from the other contents of the 
prophecy (cf. Mt 24*^). (2) The kind of operation 
of the proplietic mind wlien reaching or perceiving 
truth was intuition. In the early times of pro- 
phecy the excitation or comparative ecstasy was 
common. This elevated condition of the intuitive 
mind was natural to an Oriental people, and in 
an early age. It was a thing particularly natural 
when truth was new ; wlien convictions regarding 
God, and man's duty in moments of great ])er- 
sonal responsibility or national trial, were for tlie 
first time breaking on the liuman mind. But, 
on the other hand, it is equally natural that 
as prophecy became more regular and acquired 
the character of a stable institution, such accom- 
paniments of revelation in the mind would gr.adu- 
ally disappear. And the same ell'ect would follow 
from the gradual accumulation of religious truths. 
These were no longer altogetlier new. As funda- 
mental verities they had entered into the conscious- 
ness of the nation. Wliat was new was only the 
application of tliem to the particular crisis in the 
inuividual's life or the nation's liistory, or that 
further expansion of them needful in order to 
make them applicable. But this was always new. 

No truth uttered by a prophet has attained thi 
rank of a maxim of reflection or a deduction from 
prior truths. The prophet never comes before 
men inferring. His mind operates in another way. 
The truth reached is always a novelty to him, so 
that he feels it to be an immediate communication 
from God. But it is vain to speculate how the 
Divine mind coalesces witli the human, or to ask 
at what point the Divine begins to operate. Some 
have argued that the operation was dynamical, 
that is, an intensification of the faculties of the 
mind, enabling it thus to reach higher truth. 
Others regard the Di\'ine operation as of the nature 
of suggestion of truth to tlie mind. What is to be 
held, at all events, is that revelation was not the 
communication of abstract or general religious 
ideas to the intellect of the prophet. His whole 
religious mind was engaged. He entered into the 
fellowshij) of God, his mind occupied with all his 
own religious interests and all those of the people 
of God ; and his mind thus operating, he reached 
the practical truth relevant to the occasion. 

iix. The False Prophets. — Reference has 
already been made in the historical sketch to the 
so-called false prophets, but the phenomenon of 
false prophecy has points of connexion also with 
the proplietic mind. A hard-and-fast line of de- 
marcation between true and false prophecy can 
hardly be drawn. The fact that prophecy was the 
embodiment of a religious-national spirit accounts 
for what is called false propliecy. When the 
spirit that animated the pro])het pursued pre- 
dominantly national ends, he was a false prophet ; 
when the ends pursued were religious and ethical 
the prophet was true, because in the religion of 
J" the national was transient, and the ethical 

In early times men everywhere felt the nearness 
of tlie supernatural ; the Divine, with its mani- 
festations, was all about them. Those who seemed 
or who professed themselves to be inspired were 
accepted as being so (cf. the reception given to 
Ehud by the king of Moab, Jg S-"'-). The spirit of 
the time was not critical ; it was reverent, or, as 
we might now say, credulous. In the first conflict 
which we read of between true and false prophecy 
(1 K 22) the 400 prophets of Ahab were false and 
Micaiah true, but Mieaiah did not consider tlie pre- 
tensions to inspiration of his opponent Zedekiah to 
be false. He was inspired, but it was by a lying 
spirit from the Lord (1 K22"--^). This lying spirit 
was put by J" in the mouth of the prophets of 
Ahab tliat they might entice him to liis destruc- 
tion. The explanation given by Ezekiel (Ezk 13. 
14) is similar : J" deceives the prophet that He 
may destroy him and his dupes alike (14^). But 
J"'s deception of the prophets in order to destroy 
them and those who consult them is in punish- 
ment of previous evil (1 K 22', Ezk 14>-", 2 S 24'). 
A profounder conception of tlie ethical nature of 
J", and a dislike to regard Him as the author of 
evil (cf. 2 S 24' with 1 Ch 21'), combined perliaps 
with a more critical juilgmcnt of their contem- 
poraries, led others to a dillerent explanation. To 
.Jeremiah the false prophet is not inspired by a 
lying spirit from J", lie is not insjiired at all. He 
s|)eaks out of his own heart, and has not been 
sent (Jer 23'«-2i- »■=«). Micah goes further and 
auiilyzes the prophet's motives : he sjieaks wliat 
men wish to hear (2", cf. Is SO'""), and for iiitpicsted 
ends — ' When they have something to chew with 
their teetli they cry, Peace ; hut wlioso putteth not 
into their mouth, they preach war against him ' 
(3°). And the priest Amaziah (Am 7") .seems to 
iiave formed his idea of the prophets aa a whole 
from this cla3.s. 

There are several kinds of false prophecy of 
little interest except as casting light on the re. 



ligious condition of the people, e.g. prophecy by 
other gods than J', a thing perhaps not very preva- 
lent in the prophetic age ; and prophecy as a 
professional means of gaining a living. Tliere 
were persons who assumed the Imiry mantle and 
atlected proplietic plira'^eology, ne'i'nn J", 'saith J"' 
(cf. Jer 23" yiu'dmH ne'iim, Ezk 13'-'), apparently 
for the sake of bread (Mic 3°). It was customary 
to bring presents to the seers and prophets in 
ancient times when people consulted them (1 S 9', 
1 K 14^ 2 K 8"- ; cf. Wu 22'), and the practice not 
unnaturally led to deterioration in the prophetic 
class. But in '■elation to the question of the ' pro- 
phetic mind.' Me only 'false' propliecy of interest 
is tliat w hicli we see among prophets all professedly 
and alike prophets of J". Men who alike regarded 
prophetic truth as something revealed by J" in the 
heart, are found not infrequently to give forth as the 
word of J" conflicting judgments. They advised 
contrary steps in a political emergency, or tliey 
predicted diverse issues in regard to some enterprise 
on which they were consulted. Ahab's 400 said, 
• Go up to Hamoth-gUead, for J" shall deliver it 
into the hand of the king ' ; but Micaiah said, ' I 
saw all Israel scattered upon the mountains' (1 K 
22"- "). Jer. predicted that the Chaldjvan suprem- 
acy would last 70 years, while Hananiah prophesied 
tliat in two years' time the exiles would return, 
with Jehoiachin at their head (Jer 28). To us now, 
with our ideas of the prophet, and looking back to 
liim aa a great isolated and almost miraculous 
personage, divinely accredited, two things seem 
Burprising, Jirst, tliat any one should supiiose him- 
self a true prophet of J" who was not ; and, second, 
that the people failed to discriminate between the 
true and the false. As to the first point, it is very 
ditlicult to discover on what plane of religious 
attainment those called false prophets .stood, and 
what kind of consciousness they had. Evidently, 
they had lofty conceptions of J" in some of lii? 
attributes. These were perhaps more His natural 
attributes, such as His power, than those of His 
moral being. It is here perhaps that the point of 
ditl'erence lies— J" was not to them absolutely or 
greatly a moral being. He was a natural force, and 
His operation in a way magical : they thought His 
mere presence in the temple guaranteed its inviola- 
bility. They were Jehovists, but J" was to them 
greatly a symbol of nationality, and they were 
fervid nationalists. Such feelings coloured their 
outlook into tlie future, making them the optimists 
that they were, always crying, I'eace and .Safety ! 
Further, in whatever way the true jjrophet was 
Msured that he spoke the word of J", the evidence 
was internal. He had the witness in him.self. It 
was a con.sciousness, something positive, but not 
negative. The person who wanted it had no con- 
sciousness of the want. The is similar to, if 
not identical with, what is still familiar in religious 
As to the second point, the people's failure to 

discriminate between the true and false prophets, 
it is evident that they had no criterion by which 
to decide. There was usually nothing in tiie mere 

projihecy or prediction on one side or the other to 
carry conviction. They had to bring the criterion 
with them in their own minds, i.e. to go back to 
the princijjles on which the prophecy was bsised — 
He tliat 18 of the truth hearetn my words. The 
condition of the people's mind can be observed in 
Jer 18". Hero we see that the peoiile believed in 
prophecy us the word of J", and in tlieir prophets; 
but Jeremiah, who contradicted these prophets, 
they consiilered a deceiver and no lover of his 
country. Their state of mind appears even more 
clearly from Jer 28. Hanaiiiali pre<licted that the 
Exile would be over in two years, while Jeremiah 
said it would last two generations Naturally, the 

people gave their voice for Hananiah, and for tl e 
moment Jeremiah was put to silence. There wer« 
several things which it has been supposed might 
have served as external criteria of true prophecy : 
(1) the prophetic ecstasy ; (2) miracle; and (3) fulfil- 
ment of the prediction. Hut all these things when 
used as tests to discriminate between one prophet 
and another were liable to fail. 

(1) The ecstasy in greater or less degree was a 
thing natural to an Oriental people ; in the early 
prophetic period it was common ; it was, however, 
no essential element in prophecy. It was no evi- 
dence that a prophet was true, neither was it any 
evidence that he was false, tliouj;li if evidence at 
all it was rather evidence that lie was false, at 
least in later times, for in the ethical proiihecy of 
the 8th century it rarely appears. Ewald, indeed, observed that the ecstasy was liable to he a 
source of false propliecj-, for one subject to such a 
condition might think himself inspired by J" when 
he was not. 

(2) Miracle might certainly be an evidence and 
test of true propliecj', e.g. in the conditions pio- 
po.sed by Elijah atCarmel ; but such conditions were 
rarely possible. In the OT miracle means wonder ; 
it is something extraordinary, nothing more. The 
force of a miracle to us, arising from our notion of 
Law, would not be felt by a llclirow, because he 
had no notion of natural law. l''urtlier, the ancient 
mind was reverent, or superstitious, and felt itself 
surrounded by superhuman powers. It was not J" 
alone or His servants that could work wonders; 
the magicians in Egypt also did so (Ex 7"- " 8'). 
Again, even when J" empowered one to give a sign 
or wonder, the meaning of the wonder might be 
ambiguous. In Dt 13"'- a prophet is supposed per- 
mitted to work a miracle at the same time that he 
advocates worship of other gods than J " ; but the 
miracle so far from authenticating him as true has 
quite another purpose : it is to prove the people 
whether they love J" with all their heart. To one 
who knows and loves J" no miracle will authenticate 
another god. And to all this has to be added the 
fact that from Amos downwards miracle plays 
hardly anj' part in the history of prophecy (though 
cf. Is 7" SS"''-), while it was just in the last days of 
the kingdom of Judah that false prophecy was most 

(3) The test of fulfilment of the prophetic word 
is proposed in Dt 18-'. Hut this criterion was one 
which was serviceable less to individuals than to 
the people, whose life was continuous and extended. 
As a guide to the conduct of individuals at the 
moment when the prediction was uttered it could bo 
of little service. Occasionally predictions were made 
which had reference to the near future, as when 
Micaiah predicteil Ahab's defeat at Kiuiiotli-gilead, 
or when Jeremiah foretold the death of Hananiah 
within the year. But usually the pro|>hecies bore 
upon the destinies of the State, and had reference to 
a somewhat indefinite future. Tliis peculiarity per- 
plexed men's minds, and led to the despair or the 
disparagement of prophecy. They said, ' The days 
are prolonged, and every vision failetli' ; or if they 
did not go so far thej' said of tlie prophet, 'The 
vision that he seeth is for many days lo come, and 
heprophesicth of the times that are far oil" (Ezk 
12-^-'^). Wliile, therefore, in the prolonged-life of 
the people the event might ultimately be seen to 
justify the prophet (Ezk '2'), some more immediate 
test was necessary for the guidance of the indi- 
vidual. Such a test is proi>oscd hy Jeremiah. Tlio 
test lies in the relation of the prophecy to the moral 
condition of the people. The prophet who predicts 
disaster and judgment needs no further aiitlieiiti- 
cation: the nature of his prophecy proves him 
true; the prophet who prophesies I'eace, let lliu 
event justify him I (Jer 28^"). The interesliiiy 



thing in all this is that so far as religious certitude 
was concerned the people of Israel were exactly in 
the same position as ourselves. Neither the super- 
natural nor anything else will produce conviction 
apart from moral conditions of the mind. This is 
perhaps a truism because the conviction required 
was not mere intellectual helief, but religious faith 
in a person and in II is word. 

False prophets are delined to be those by whom 
J" did not speak, and true prophets those by whom 
11^ spoke. The dehnition is true on both its sides, 
and there are instances when nothing more can 
be said. But usually it is possible to go a step 
further back The opposite way of statin" the 
point lias also a truth in it : J" did not speak by 
certain prophets because they were false. His 
speaking or not speaking was not a mere occur- 
rence, isolated and in no connexion with the 
previous mind of the prophets and their religious 
principles. It is extremely difficult to realize the 
condition of people's minds at any time in Israel. 
There were many jilanes of religious attainment. 
There were worshippers of other gods than J" ; 
and there were those who combined J" and other 
gods in their worship (Zeph 1). Tliere were wor- 
shippers of J" to whom J ' was little more than 
a symbol of their nationality. There were wor- 
shippers of J" who, in addition to regarding Him 
as the impersonation of their nationality, ascribed 
to Him lofty natural attributes, such as power, 
but who reflected little if at all on the moral 
aspects of His being. And there were those to 
whom the moral overshadowed all else, and who 
regarded J" as the verj' impersonation of the moral 
idea. Scholars will dispute how far moral concep- 
tions of J" prevailed among the people from the 
first, and also how much moral teaching was set 
before them at the beginning. But the great 
lesson-book in which thoughtful men read was the 
national history and fortunes. This was written 
by the finger of God. In the prosperous days after 
David little advance might be made ; men settled 
on their lees. But by and by God sent unto them 
' them that pour oti" (Jer 48'-). The disasters 
suffered in the olistinate Syrian wars from Omri 
onwards awoke the conscience of men, revealing 
the nature of J", and directing the eye to the 
national sores ; for at all times national disaster 
and internal miseries were felt to be due to the 
displeasure of God (2 S •IV- 24i», 1 K 17'). Thus, 
though history casts little light on its growth, 
there arose a society educated in the things of 
God, and it was out of this society that the true 
pro|i1iets were called ; for the idea that the breadth 
and wealth of religious and moral conceptions in a 
propliet like Amos were all supplied to him by 
revelation after his call, will hardly be maintained. 
Those who stood on a lower plane were not suited 
for the purposes of J", and He did not speak by 
them. They came forward in His name, but it 
was mainly national impulses that inspired them. 

There are three lines on which Jeremiah opposes 
the otiier prophets : the political, the moral, and 
the personal. (1) The false or national prophets 
desired that Israel should take its place amon" the 
nations as one of them ; be a warlike State, ride on 
horses, build fenced cities, and when in danger seek 
alliances abrojul. Jeremiah and the true prophets 
instead of all these things recommend quiet con- 
fidence and trust in J" (Is 7" 17'). (2) The naifonal 
[uophets had not a stringent morality. Jeremiah 
charges some of them with being immoral (Jer 
23'^). But what characterized tliem all was a 
superficial judgment of the moral condition of the 
nation, which was but the counterpart of their 
inadequate conception of the moral being of J". 
The condition of society did not strike them as at 
all desperate. Hence they preached Peace, and 

healed the hurt of the people slightly. On the 
other hand, the wordsof Micah, ' I am full of power 
to declare to Jacob his transgressions ' (3*), might 
be taken as the motto of every true prophet. It ia 
possible, even true, that the demands of the true 
prophets were ideal, that they could not be realized 
in an earthly community, that it was the spirit of 
the future yet to be that was reflecting itself in 
their hearts — a future that even to us is stUl to 
be ; and it is not impossible that the people felt 
this and passed by their words as impossible of 
realization (Jer 2'-'^) — a very lovely song of one that 
hath a pleasant voice (Ezk 33^-'). (3) With his 
tendency- to introsjiection Jeremiah analyzes hia 
own mind ; and that naive feeling of former pro- 
phets, that; they spoke the word of J", is to him a 
distinct element of consciousness. He knows that 
he stands in the council of J", and he is certain 
that the false prophets have not his experience 
(2328. 2SI). He does not hesitate to go further and 
assert that those prophets whom he opposes are 
conscious that tliey have no true fountain of in- 
spiration within them. Their prophetic manner, 
'saith J",' is atVectation (23*'), and there is nothing 
personal in the contents of tlieir oracles, which 
they steal every one from his neighbour (23'°). 
The prophets of this time speak of their ' dreams,' 
and it is possible that the crisis in the nation's 
history agitated them and produced mental ex- 
citation ; out it is evident that they represented a 
phase of prophecy which had long been overcome. 
It is strange that, from the days of Micaiah ben 
Imlah under Ahab down to the fall of the Jud;ean 
State, no change seems to have taken place in the 
position and principles either of the true prophets 
or of the false. 

C. The Teachino of tee Prophets.— The 
idea of the 'proiihet,' one who speaks from God 
(B. i.), leaves a very extended sphere of action to 
the prophet. The prophet is always a man of his 
own time, and it is always to the people of his own 
time that he speaks, not to a generation long after, 
nor to us. And the things of which he speaks will 
always be things of importance to the peoi>le of 
his own day, whether they be things belonging to 
their internal life and conduct, or tilings afiecting 
their external fortunes as a people among other 
peoples. And as he speaks ti) the mind and con- 
sciousness of the people before him, he speaka 
always with a view to influence it. On many, 
perhaps on all occasions, the most powerful means 
of exerting an influence on the mind of his time 
may be what he is able to reveal to it of the future, 
whether the future be full of mercy or of judg- 
ment ; but whether he speaks of the present or the 
future the direct and conscious object of the pro- 
phet is to influence the people of bis own genera- 
tion. For this purpose the prophet reviews, not 
only the forces and tendencies operating in his 
own nation, but all the forces, moral and national, 
operating in the great world outside (Jer 1'"). 

Influenced partly by the great apologetic use 
made of the prophecies in the NT, interpreters 
were for long accustomed to lay almost exclusive 
stress upon the predictive element in projihecy, so 
that prophecy and prediction were considered 
things identical. The function of the prophet 
was supposed to be to predict the Messiah ana the 
things of His kingdom ; and the use of the pro- 
phecies was to iirove that Jesus was the Messiah, 
or more generally to show the sui>ernaturalness of 
revelation. However legitimate such a use of the 
prophe<'ies may be, modern interpreters have 
rightly felt that it failed to take into account a 
very large part of their contents. The religious 
and moral teaching of the prophets was overlooked. 
Hence in modern times a dirterent view has arisen, 
to the efl'ect that the function of the prophet was 



to teach moral and reli|;.'ious truth. But this view 
is equall .■ onesijed with the other. To us now to 
whom tlie apolo<;etic use of prophecy has become 
less necessary, the moral teaching of the propliets 
may seem tlie most important thinj; in their pro- 
phecies. Hut if any prophetic book be e.\amineJ, 
such as Amos or Uos 4-14, or any of the complete 
prophetic discourses contained in a prophet's book, 
sucli aa Is 1. 5. 6. 2-4, it will ajipuar that the 
ethical and reli^'ious teaching is always secondary, 
and that the e.^.seutial thing in the book or dis- 
course is the prophet's outlook into the future. 
The burden of tlie teaching; of all the great 
canonical jirophets is: (1) that the downfall of 
the Slate is imminent ; (2) that it is J" who is 
destroying it ; and (3) that the nation w hich shall 
overthrow it, be it As.syria or Babylon, is the 
instrument of J", the rod of His anger, raised up 
by Him to execute His purpose. And the pro- 

S net's religious teachinf: regarding the nature of 
", and the duty and sin of the people, is sub- 
ordinate, and meant to sustain his outlook into 
the future and awaken the mind of the people to 
the truth of it (cf. above A. iii. 3). This may be said 
also of such a NT prophet as John the Baj>tist, 
and in a sense even of our Lord. The Baptist's 
theme was, The kingdom of heaven is at hand ; and 
liis ethical teaching, IJepeiit! Bring forth fruits 
meet for repentance ! was designed to prepare men 
for entering into the kingdom. And our Lord's 
theme was the same, the coming of the kingdom 
of God ; and His moral teaching, such as the 
Sermon on the Mount, was intended to show the 
nature of the kingdom and the condition of mind 
nece.s.-^ai-y to inherit it. Of course, the outlook of 
the prophets was not bounded by the downfall of 
the .State. Their outlook embraces also that which 
lies bcvond, for the great events transacting around 
them, being all moral interpositions of J", seem to 
them alwaj's to issue in the coming in of the per- 
fect kingdom of God ; and this final condition of 
the peojile is virtually their chief theme. 

i. General Teaching. — In general, the prophets 
may be characterized as religious idealists, who 
appealed directly to the spirit in man ; who set the 
truth before men and exhorted them to follow it, 
not out of constraint, but in freedom of spirit, 
because it was good, and the will of their God. 
They never dreamed of legislative compulsion. 
The law recogni7.ed by Amos is the law of riglit- 1 
eousness and humanity written on all men's hearts, 
whether Jew or heathen; the law of Hosea is the 
law of love to Him who had loved the people and 
called His son out of Kgypt. The propliets really 
occupied the Christian position ; tliey ilemanded 
with St. Paul that men's conduct and life should 
be the free expression of the sjjirit within them, a 
spirit to be formed and guided by the fellowship 
01 God and the tliankfiil rtmembrance of His 
redenijition wrought for them. Later prophets 
perceive that man's sjiirit must be determined bj 
un operation of (iod, who will write His law on it 
(Jer 'M'"), or who will put His own spirit within 
hiiri as the impulsive jjrinciplc of his life (Is 32", 
K/k 36^"). llcnce ritual has no place in the 
liruphetic teaching, that which is moral alone 
liiis anj- meaning. No doubt the prophets assail 
abuses in ritual worshin as well as in social life, 
and men more practical than they embody their 
|>rinciples in legislative form, for the prophets, 
instead of being mere expounders of the Law, are 
indirectly the authors of^ the Law ; but when this 
legislation, even though an embodiment of pro- 
phetic tejiching, is elevated by authority into State 
or ecclesiastical law, however necessary the step 
D'.iglit be, it is a descent from the NT position 
occupied by the prophets. 

Tlie special teaching of the individual prophets 

is treated under their respective names. Here 
only two or three general points can be alluded 

(1) The prophets all teach that J" alone is God of 
Israel, and that He is a moral Being, whose accept- 
able service is a religions and ri'jliteous lite (.Mic li"), 
and not mere ritual (Hos6', Is I""'-, Jer 7-"'-, 1 S 
1 j-"-). Questions have been raised whether in tliese 
points the prophets follow a law, such as the Deca- 
logue, or whether the moral Decalogue be not, in 
fact, a concentration of their teaching. All classes 
of the people agreed with the prophets that J" was 
the particular God of Israel, but a theoretical 
monotheistic faith cannot have prevailed among 
the mass of the people. Such a faitli, though only 
iniormally and indirectly enunciated by them, 
evidently prevailed among the prophets from Elijah 
downwards; but how much older the belief may 
be and how widely it was entertained among the 
people, the very scant}' history scarcely enables us 
to determine- Perhaps too much stress luav be laid 
on the value, particularly in early times of simple 
thought, of an abstract monotlieism. What was 
important was the nature of J", the closeness of 
relation to Him which conditioned human life, and 
the worshipper's feeling that He was his God; 
whether other biniigs to be called gods existed, and 
were served by the nations, was practically of little 
moment. Even the polytheism of the heathen 
sometimes came practically near Id monotheism. 
Worshippers usually devoted thcmseh es to one out 
of the many gods 'known in their country ; they 
usually, therefore, thought of him as god alone, 
and gradually assigned all the distinctive attributes 
of other deities, i.e. virtually of deity, to him. And 
one can conceive how particularism or monolatry, 
the idea that J" was the particular God of Israel 
and of Israelites, may have had in a rude age an 
educative and religious inlluence which an ab.stract 
monotheism might not have exerted. To it may be 
gieatly due that extraordinarj' sense of the presence 
of J" in the people's history and the individual s 
life, that personal intimacy with God, characteristic 
of UT religion. 

So far as the worship of J" is concerned, it is re- 
markable that Elijah, though contending against 
Baal worship, is not said to have assailed the calves. 
The history of Elijah is a fr.-igment, and it may be 
precarious to draw conclusions from the historian's 
silence. Even Amos does not refer formally to the 
calves ; he condemns the ritual worsliipas a whole, 
and threatens with destruction the seats of calf- 
worship ; and his condemnation of the whole prob- 
ably applies to the details ; at least it is wholly 
inept to infer that he saw no evil in the calves. 
Hosea is the lirst to condemn them expressly, and 
in Judali Isaiah in like manner often assails images 
(Is 2* 17"). When the early i)ropliets assail the worship 
at the high places, it is the nature of the worship 
that they attack, not the niultiplicitj' of altars. 
But Jer. and Ezek., along with Dent., go further, 
and condemn the high places themselves; they are 
Canaanite and heathen (Dt 12-, Jer 2', Ezk 20i-'"'-).* 
The prophets' attacks on sacrilice are in opposition 
to the exaggerated worth assigned to ritual by tlie 
people. Tlicir position is not, as is often said, that 
sacrilice without a righteous life is an abomination 
to J", but rather this : that sacrilice as a substitute 
for a righteous life is an abomination. It is a 
question of service of J" : and J " desires a righteous 
life so much more than sacrifice, that He may be 
said not to desire sacrilice at all (llos 6'). 

(2) Though the prophets use the word 'covenant' 
little down to the tune of Dent, and Jer. , the idea they 
express of the relation of J" and Israel is the same. 
J" says in Am 3- ' You only have I known of all ths 

* !n Mio 10 LXX reads ' tiD of Judah ' for ' bi^h places o« 



families of the earth.' J"'s choice of Israel was a 
conscious, historical act. With tliis all the pro- 
phets agree. No motive is assigned for the choice, 
and no purpose to be served by Israel thus chosen 
is referred to. In Amos for all that appears, the 
choice of Israel is virtually an act of is called 
sovereignty. In Hosea the act is regarded as due 
to .I"'s love (11')- This makes the act moral, and 
expl.ains it, though the love itself is necessarily in- 
explicable. In Deut. the love is denied to be due to 
anj'thing in Israel, and seems just explained by 
itself (Dt 7*). In Isaiah the idea of a purpose had 
in view in the choice begins to appear. J" is the 
universal sovereign, and His making of Israel His 
people was in order that He might be recognized 
as God ,inil alone exalted (2"). In Isaiah sin is 
insensibility to J" the King, levity and self- 
exaltation ; and religion is recognition of J" and 
His benehts, a constant consciousness of Him and 
trust in Him. Wliile Jer. shares Isaiah's idea of 
what true religion is {9-*), he speaks of Israel being 
chosen ' that they might be unto me for a people, 
and for a name, and for a glory.' In other words, 
Israel was chosen that by its character it might 
reflect moral fame upon its God, that is, make 
known J" to the world of men, if not by active 
operations, by showing in its own character the 
nature of its God. The prophet of Is 40 fl'. often 
expresses the same idea (43'-'' 44'-^), but he adds to 
it the conception of an active operation of Israel in 
making J" known to the nations (Is 42'-' 49'-" 60"-). 
This is the highest generalization regarding Israel's 
place in the religious history of mankind, and the 
purpose of J" in its election. 

(3) The prophets address themselves to the 
nation ; but in appealing to the whole they appeal 
to each individual, though no doubt specially to 
those whose conduct is influential in shaping the 
destiny of the whole. J" chose a nation because 
His idea of mankind, of which He wUl be God, is 
that of a social organism. It is this organism of 
which He is God. But though the relation might 
seem to be with the ideal unity, it operated in dis- 
posing all the parts making up the unity ri<jhtly 
to one another. And in this way each individual 
felt J" to be his God. It is absurd to argue that 
the nationalism of OT religion excluded individual 
religion. But the later prophets feel that a true 
social organism can be created only out of true 
individual members, and they begin to construct 
a whole out of single persons. Many things united 
to work in this direction. The nation no longer 
existed, but the individuals remained, and J" and 
religion remained. Moreover, personal piety, such 
as was seen most conspicuously in Jer., but was not 
confined to him, was a great creative force ; the 
sense of relation to God made powerful men, and 
the sense of the relation in common united them. 
Reflexion also did something. Ezekiel saw the 
practical need of reconstructing a people, and re- 
cognized this to be his lie felt himself in 
a certain waj' a Pastor with a care of intlividual 
souls. And he saw the need of creating independ- 
ent individual personalities by disentangling them 
from the national whole and its doom — ' .Ml souls 
are mine, saith J"; as the soul of the father so also 
the soul of the son.' But, however individualistic 
the operations of the prophets of tiiis age were, 
they never abandon the idea of founding a new 
social organism. Individualism is but the neces- 
sary stage towards this. J" is God of mankind, 
not of an inorganic ma-ss of individual men. 

ii. Predictive Prophecy. — As the prophets are 
absorbed in the destinies of the kingdom of God, 
it will be chiefly mumenta in its history and de- 
v«loi)ment and its linal condition that will form 
the subject of their predictions. They will have 
little occasion to refer to the future of individuals, 

or to predict events in their history. There ar« 
instances : e.g. Samuel predicted some things that 
would happen to Saul, whicli the history declares 
did happen (1 S 9. 10). Jer. predicted the death of 
Ilananiah within the, which took place (Jer 
28). But most of the predictions relate to the 
history of the State and its destinies. Micaiah 
predicted the defeat and death of Ahab at Kamoth- 
gilead(l K22). Isaiah predicted the failure of the 
Northern coalition to subdue Jerusalem (Is 7) ; he 
also predicted the overthrow in two or three years 
of Damascus and Northern Israel before the Assj-- 
rians(Is8. 17). In like nutnner he predicted the 
failure of Sennacherib to capture Jerusalem ; while, 
on the other hand, Jer. predicted the failure of the 
Egyptians to relieve Jerusalem when besieged by 
Nebuchadnezzar. And in, apart from de- 
tails, the main predictions of the prophets regarding 
Israel and the nations were verilied in historj' (e.g. 
Am 1. 2). The chief predictions of the prophets 
relate (1) to the imminent downfall of the kingdoms 
of Israel and Judah ; (2) to what lies beyond this, 
viz. the restoration of the kingdom of God ; and 
(3) to the state of the people in their condition of 
final felicity. To the last belong the Messianic 
predictions. It is Israel, the kingdom and people 
of God, that is properly the subject of prophecy, 
but other nations are involved in its history ; e.g. 
Assyria is the instrument in the hand of J" in 
humiliating Israel, and Babylon is the obstacle 
which has to be removed before its Restoration, 
and thus these kingdoms and others become also 
the subject of prophecy. 

1. Prediction in general. — There are two ques- 
tions in connexion witli prophetic prediction which 
h.ave given rise to iliscussion : hrst, how are the 
prophetic anticipations as to the future to be ex- 
plained? anil second, what is the explanation of 
the prophet's feeling that the events which he 
predicts, e.g. the downfall of the State, the coming 
of the day of the Lord, and the inbringing of the 
perfect kingdom of God, are imminent? As to 
the lirst point, it must be obvious that the pro- 
phetic anticipations or certainties cannot be ex- 
plained as the conclusions of a shrewd political 
insight into the condition of the people or the 
nations at the time. Neither can the anticipa- 
tions of the nation's dissolution be the mere 
iiessimistic forebodings of a declining and e.\- 
Iiausted age, for the material and political con- 
dition of the North in the time of Amos, and of 
the South in the early days of Isaiah, was not 
such as to suggest such gloomy outlook. And 
least of all can it be pretended that the predic- 
tions are only app.arent, being, in fact, written 
post evc7itiim. It has been suggested that the 
human mind, or at any rate some rarely endowed 
minds, possess a faculty of presentiment or divina- 
tion, and that it is to this faculty that the jiro- 
phet's anticipations or certainties in regard to the 
occurrence of future events are due. Certainly, 
belief in the possession of such a faculty by 
pcculiarlj' gifted persons has been prevalent in 
diMcreiit .ages and among ditlerent peoples, but 
iinytliing like scientilic proof of the existence of 
the facility has probably never been offered. 7t 
would be remarkable if such a large number oi 
persons as the prophets of Israel should all 1 o 
endowed with this extraordinary faculty. And 
it would be even more strange if a faculty of this 
kind, tlie operation of which appears to be blind 
and unrational, should be found to manifest itself 
.so generally ju--t in the purest period of prophecy, 
at the time when prophecy had thrown otl' all 
naturalistic and physical characteristics and be- 
come ]iurely ethical. I'lobably, if any one of the 
data of this sujiposed faculty of luesciitiment were 
analyzed, it would be found to be the result of a 



complex process. There would be, first, a peculiar 
temperament, suggesting events sad or juyous ; 
then certain facts presented to tlie mind, and tlien 
the unconscious operation of the mind on these 
facts, the whole resulting in the presentiment or 
vaticination. There may be obscure capacities in 
the iiiiud not j'et explored ; and there may be 
sympathetic rapports of human nature with the 
greater nature around, and of mans mind with 
the moral mind of the universe, which give results 
by unconscious processes ; and if there be such 
faculties and relations, then we may assume that 
they would also enter into prophecy, for there is 
nothing common or unclean in the nature of man. 
In point of fact such presentiments as we can 
observe to be authentic are chielly products of the 
conscience or moral reason ; and Jer., as has been 
said, insists that true prophecy- in general is based 
on moral grounds and consists of moral judgments. 
And certainly all the prophets, in analyzing their 
intuitions of the future and laying them before 
the people, usually present them in the form of a 
moral syllogism. Thus Mic S'"-, after enumerating 
tlie misdeeds and oppressions of the heads of the 
house of Israel says, ' Therefore on your account 
shall Zion be plowed like a held.' And Is S""-, 
liaving described the luxuriousness and ungodly 
levity of his day, says, ' Therefore hath hell en- 
larged her maw.' Everywhere the menacing 
future is connected with the evil past by there- 
fore.' Cf. Am 1. 2. 

The other question. How is it that the prophets 
brin" in the consummation and final perfection of 
the kingdom of God immediately on the back of 
the great events in the history of the people and 
the nations taking place in their own day ? may 
not be susceptible of a single answer. (1) An 
explanation has been sought in what is called the 
perspective of prophecy. Just as one looking on 
a mountainous region sees a hill which appears 
to ruse up close behind anotlier, but when he 
approaches nearer he finds the second to have 
receded a great way from it ; so tlie prophet sees 
great events close behind one another, though in 
history and time they are far apart. This is an 
illustration, but no explanation. The explanation 
is usually found in the theory of prophetic vision, 
liut in the literary prophets, vision in any strict 
seuse has little place. The prophetic perception, 
however, was of the nature of intuition, and some- 
thing of the peculiarity referred to may be due to 
this. (2) In the period of the canonical prophets 
it is less events that suggest religious ideas and 
1m)]ic8 than idea^ already won that explain events. 
The prophets are not now learning principles, but 
ajiplying them. Their minds are full of religious 
beliefs and certainties, such as the certainty of a 
reign of righteousness upon the earth ; and Riehm 
has suggested that it is their eager expectations 
and earnest longings that make them feel the 
consummation to be at hand. (3) Another point 
may be suggested. It is only in general amidst 
convulsions that rend society that the prophets 
come forward. These convulsions and revolutions 
were the operatiiin of J", and His operations had 
all one end in view, the bringing in of His king- 
dom, and thus to the prophets these great move- 
ments seemed the heralds of the full manifestation 

• The albumen t« by which Giosebrecht, Bfn^fHhffjabuiig, 13 ff. , 
tupi^ortjt the theory of ft 'faculty of presentiment' have little 
OOKency. This (acuity is iiuppotied to reveal it«elf particularly 
on the approa<--h of death (tin 'il. 40). The contemporarie:* of 
most preat religious pervonofces have attributed to them a 
prophetic (fifl. The anBwcrof John Knox to those who credited 
nini with Huch a gift is worth reading : ' My assurances are not 
uiurvoUi of Merlin, nor yet the dark sentences of profane pro- 

fthecy. But, Jirat, the plain truth of Ood's word. Hfcond, the 
nvinclble Justice of the everlastiiiK t!od. and third, the ordinary 
course of His punishments and nluKues from the be^'innin^, are 
my ossuruices aud grounda.' liinlory, p. '^7 (Uuthrie't eu.). 

of J". For the movements had all moral signi- 
ficance : they were a judgment on His people, 
which would so change them as to lead into the 
final salvation {Is oy^"- '"• SU""'- SP"-), or they 
were the judgment of the world, removing the 
obstacle to the coming of His kingdom (Is 40 ft'.) ; 
and thus the present and the final were organically 
connected, the chain was formed of moral links. 
Further, the prophets appear to entertain and 
operate with general conceptions. Israel is not 
merely a people, it is the people of God. Babylon 
is not only a hostile nation, it is the idolatrous 
world. The conflict between them in the age of 
Cj'rus is a conflict of principles, of Jehovism and 
idolatry, of truth and falsehood, of good and evil. 
It is not a conflict having great moral significance, 
it has absolute significance, and is linal : ' Ashamed, 
confounded, are all of them that are makers of 
graven images : Israel is saved w ith an everlasting 
salvation ' (Is -l.')"'). 

2. Messianic Prophecy. — The term Messianic is 
used in a wider and a narrower sense. In the 
wider sense the term is virtually equivalent to 
Eschatological, and comprehends all that relates to 
the consummation and perfection of the kingdom 
and people of God. In the narrower sense it refers 
to a personage, the Messiah, who is, not always, 
but often, a commanding figure in this perfect con- 
dition of the kingdom. The conception of a final 
condition of mankind could hardly have arisen 
before a general idea of the nature of the human 
economy had been reai lied. Insight into the 
meaning of human history, however, was not 
attained in Israel by reflection on the life of 
mankind, but by revelation of the nature of God. 
God was the real maker of human history. Hence, 
when so broad a view as that of human life or 
history as a whole is taken, it is, so to speak, 
secondary : it is a reflection of the view taken ol 
God, of His Being, and therefore of wliat the 
issue will be when He realizes Himself in the 
history and life of mankind. So soon as the 
conception of the perfect ethical Being of J " Was 
reachcil, there could nut but immediately follow 
the idea also that liunian history, which was not 
so much under His providence as His direct opera- 
tion, would eventuate in a kingdom of righteous- 
ness which would embrace all mankind. The way, 
no doubt, in which this is conceived is that this 
kingdom of righteousness is first realized in Isniel, 
and that through Israel it extends to all mankind 
— for the nations come to Israel's light (Is (iu). 
But it is the unity of God that su"gests to men's 
minds the unity of mankind ; and tlie moral being 
of God that suggests the moral perflation of man- 
kind. And such ideas hardly prevailed before the 
prophetic age. 

The Messianic in the narrower sense is part of 
the general doctrine of the Eschatology of the 
kingdom (see EscilATOLOGY). The 'Messianic' in 
this sense is hardly a distinct thing or hope. The 
Messiah is not an independent figure, unlike all 
other figures or personages, and higher than they ; 
on the contrary. He is always some actual histori- 
cal figure idealized. The term means ' anointed,' 
and only two per.sonages received anointing— the 
king, and possibly the priest ; though no doubt 
the term ' anointed ' was used more generally in 
later times (I's Hi.')"). The OT is occupied with 
two subjects — Jehovah and the people, and the 
relation between them. The E.schatological per- 
fection is the issue of a rcdemiitive movement. 
Now, the only redeemer of His [leople is J" — salva- 
tion belongetn unto the Lord. The Eschatological 
perfection is always duo to His operation— the 
perfection consists in His perfect presence aiming 
His people, for the idea of salvation is the fellow, 
ship of God and men. But, on the other hand 



the people are not passive. The goal is set before 
them, and they strive towards it. J" awakens 
ideals in their mind, and aspirations after them ; 
ami in contrast to such ideals the imperfections of 
the present are felt, and an effort made to overcome 
them. But it is characteristic of the redemptive 
operations of J" that He influences the people and 
leads them forward, through great personages 
whom He raises up among them. Such persons 
are diflFerent in dill'erent ages — judges, prophets, 
kings, and the like. These He enlightens so that 
they give the people knowledge, or He endows 
them by His spirit with kingly attributes, so that 
they govern the people aright (Is ll'"- 28'> 32i"-), 
and lead them on to the final perfection. But J" 
always remains the Saviour ; and if there be any 
mediatorial personage it is J" in him, the Divine 
in him, that saves. Naturally, the most e.xaJted 
and influential personage is the king : he has the 
lieople wholly in hLs hand ; the ideal is that he 
reigns in righteousness and secures peace (Is 3'2'*-). 
The Messiah is mainly the ideal Kmg. Thus the 
Eschatological perfection may be supposed reached 
in two ways : Jir-H, 3" the only Saviour may come 
in person to abide among His people for ever. In 
tile earlier prophets His coming is called the day 
uf the Lord — .a day of judgment, and eternal salva- 
tion behind the judgment. What precise concep- 
tion the prophets formed of the coming of J" may 
not be easy to determine. But it was not merely 
1 coming in wonderful works, or in the word of 
His prophets, or in a spiritual influence upon the 
people's minds, it was something objective and 
personal. In later prophets, such as Ezek. and the 
post-exile prophets, it was a coming to His temple ; 
and wlien He comes Jerusalem is called Jehovah 
Shammah, ' the Lord is there' (Ezk 48", Hag 2'"-, 
Mai 3'). Examples of such representations are Is 
40'"" ' The Lord cometh with might, his arm 
rulin" for him ; the glory of the Lord shall be 
revealed, and all flesh shall see it together,' and 
Ps 102"- '*• ". But, secondly, sometimes the mani- 
festation of J" is not considered immediate and in 
person : He is manifested in the Davidic king. 
The Davidic king may then be called Immariucl, 
'God with us,' and El Gibbor, 'God mighty' 
(Is 7. 9. 11). In NT both these classes of passages 
are interpreted in a Messianic sense. To NT 
writers Christ had approved Himself as God mani- 
fest in the flesh, and even such passages as were 
spoken by the OT writer of J" are regarded as 
fulfilled in Him and spoken of Him, for no dis- 
tinction was drawn between these two things (e.g. 
Is 40'-" in Mk IS Ps 102 in He l'""-). 

(a) The Monarchy. — J" is represented at all 
times as Saviour; and this idea is of special im- 
l)ortance, because it la3's the foundation for both 
the work and person of the Messiah, as the word 
is ordinarily used. During the monarchy the 
prominent figure in the salvation of the people or 
in ruling it when saved by J" is the Davidic king. 
The true king of Israel is J" : Israel is the king- 
dom of God; and this is a general eschatological 
idea, suggesting what the kingdom will be when 
it is fully realized and J" truly reigns (Ps 96-99). 
But it is the Davidic monarchy that is Messianic 
in the narrower sense. This unites two lines — the 
Divine and the human. The Davidic kin" is the 
representative of J " ; truly to represent Him, J" 
Himself, the true king, must be in him and manifest 
Himself throu-h him (Is 9'-« 11'"). But, on the 
other hand, both David and his rule were suggestive. 
(1) He was himself a devout worshipper of J", 
endowed with the .s])irit of the knowleoge and the 
fear of the Lord (Is 11-). (2) He subdued the 
peoples and extended the limits of his kingdom 
till for that age it might be called an empire, 
suggesting the universality of the kingdom of God 

(Ps 28 72'"-, Zee 9">). (3) His rule was just and 
the end of his reign peaceful, suggesting the idea 
of a ruler perfectly righteous, and a reign of peace 
(2 S 23»"-, Is 9»-'2J, Mic 5', I's 723-', Zee 9'"). (i} 
Finally, he founded a dynasty, which suggested 
the idea of the [lerpetuity of the rule of his house 
over the kingdom of J" (Is 9', Ps 72'). Such 
points may not have struck men's minds in David's 
own age, but in later and less happy times, when 
his reign was idealized, they were noticed, and 
entered into the conception of the future king and 
kingdom of J". The promise given by Nathan to 
David takes up the first and fourlli of these points 
— the close relation between .)"anil those of David's 
house who shall sit upon the throne, and the per- 
petuity of the rule of his family (2 S 7"*"). Ihis 
promise is the basis of all suljsci]ucnt prophecy 
regarding the Davidic king. Such passages as 
Ps 2 take up the promise, ' I will he to him a 
father, and he shall be to me a son,' while the pro- 
phecies Is 7-11 are founded on the promise, ' Thy 
throne shall be established for ever.' It was during 
the Sjro-Ephraimitic war (B.C. 73o f.) that the idea 
of a special future king of David's house was 
expressed by Isaiah. The Northern coalition 
meditated the deposition of the Davidic dynasty, 
but the projihet's faith in the promises given to 
David enabled him to foresee that though his 
house should share the humiliations of the peojile 
and be cut down to the ground, yet out of the 
root of Jesse a new shoot would arise on whom the 
spirit of the Lord would rest (Is 11). From this 
time forward there is a special Messianic hope, 
that is, the hope of an extraordinary king out of 
the house of David. This hope, though in some 
periods not referred to, continues to prevail to the 
end of the people's history. Subsequent prophets 
repeat, but add little to, Isaiah's ideas, e.g. Mio 
4. 5 (though the age of the pa.ssages is disputed), 
Jer 235- « 30», Ezk IT""-'' 34--«''- 37'^-'-»-. Prophets 
prior to Isaiah, as Am 9", Hos 3', do not seem yet to 
have readied the idea of a special king of David's 
house ; and other prophets before the E.\ile, Naliiim, 
Zephaniah, and Habakkuk, though some of them 
refer to the final condition of the people and the 
world, do not allude to an expected future king.* 

(i) The Exile. — After the destruction of tlia 
monarchy and the abasement of the Davidic 
house the hope of a great ruler out of that house 
for a time disappears (e.g. in Is 4011'.). The 
general eschatological hope of the perfection and 
felicity of the people is even more luilliant than 
before, but no great personage is referred to as 
ruler of the saved people. J" Himself is the 
Saviour and the everlasting King, who feeds His 
(lock like a shepherd (Is 40"). And the .sure 
mercies of David — the privileges and the mission 
of the Davidic house — are now transferred to 
the people (Is 55"'). Circumstances turned the 
thoughts of the prophets in other directions. 
God's providential tnalment of Israel suggested 
to them new conceiition.s They reflected on the 
meaning of the history of Israel and its sufferings, 
and on its place in the moral history of mankind. 
And there arose the great conception of 'the 
Servant of the Lord.' The phrase expresses the 
highest generalization on the meaning of Israel in 
the religious life of mankind — Israel is the Servant 
of J" to the nations, to bring to them the know- 
ledge of God. Scholars do not universally accept 
this interpretation, but they agree that tiie ideai 
expressed by the prophet in regard to the Servant 
have been more tlian verified in Christ. Of these 
ideas the two chief are : first, that the Servant is 
the mis^ional•y of J" to the nations — he bringeth 
forth right to the nations, that the s.alvation of J* 
may be to the ends of the earth (Is 42'-' 49'-" etc.); 
• The Tai-K""! intei-preta Hos 3* of the Mc^jtiioh. 



and second, hy his sufferings he atones for the 
SIMS of the nionibers of the people (Is j.'i, cf. 40-'). 
The Servant is the ' word' and spirit of J" incar- 
nated in the seed of Abraham. I'liis inciirnaied 
word will yet redeem all Israel and be the light of 
the nations. Here again it is the Dirine that saves ; 
the word of J", the true knowledge of the true 
(Jod, implanted once for all in the heart of man- 
kind in Israel, which will accomplish that whereto 
it is sent (Is a')'"). As Delitzsoh remarks, the 
Servant of the Lord, though strictly nut a Mes- 
sianic figure at all in the narrower sense, contri- 
butes more elements, and those of the profoiindest 
kind, to the Christological conception realized in 
our Lord than all other figures to^'ether. The 
ideal of the Davidic king is that ot a ruler just 
and conipa-ssionate, whose rule secures righteous- 
ness and peace and the wellbeing of the poor and 
meek (Is 11''") : whether in Is 9'"' he be the saviour 
or onlj- ruler of a people saved by J " may be dis- 
puted. But in connexion with the Servant of the 
Lord deeper conceptions appear, such as that of 
atonement for sin througli tlie sullering of the 
guiltless, and the idea tliat the highest glory is 
the reward of him who loses his life for others 
(Is 53'-). In former prophets, who foresee both 
the rejection and the restoration of the people, 
the restoi-ation is unmediated by any atonement 
beyond the people's repentance : God forgives 
their sins of His mere}* and restores them. In 
Den tero- Isaiah the Servant atones for the sins of 
the people, and their restoration follows. lormer 
prophets, owing to the people's misconceptions of 
the meaning of ritual, assail the sacrifices; Deut.- 
Is. combines the sacrificial idea with the sufferings 
of the Servant, lifting the idea out of the region 
of animal life into that of human life. These two 
figures, the Davidic king and the sutfering Servant, 
supply the chief contents of the idea of the Chris- 
tian Slessiah. It is strange how little impression 
the conceptions of the proph